<p><br /></p><p>I think it is ready for WG LC.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am unware
of additional IPRs that need to be disclosed.</p><p><br /></p><p>Sorry for my
so delayed response.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Hongjun
Zhai</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Jiangning District,
Nanjing City, People's Republic of China</p><p>Mobile:
+086-025-5287-7345</p><p>Email: <a
href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><br
/></p><hr /><p><br /><br />δΊ 2015-11-25 09:47:34,Mingui
Zhang<[email protected]>ει:</p><blockquote
style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px
solid"><div class="WordSection1"><p><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">I think the draft is technically ready for WG LC. It is
informative.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#1F497D">I
heard at least one option depicted in the doc is being deployed. Each of the
two option has its own characteristics. It would be helpful and even necessary
to provide both of them to various operators.</span></p><p></p><p><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#1F497D">There is no additional IPR that need to
be disclosed according to my knowledge.</span></p><p></p><p><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#1F497D">Thanks,</span></p><p><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#1F497D">Mingui</span></p><div
style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
4.0pt"><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> Susan Hares
[mailto:[email protected]]<br /><strong>Sent:</strong> Tuesday, November 24, 2015
6:16 PM<br /><strong>To:</strong> [email protected];
[email protected]<br /><strong>Cc:</strong> 'Alia
Atlas'; 'Donald Eastlake'; 'Jon Hudson'<br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 2 week
WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-ribridge-multilevel-00.txt. (11/24 to
12/8/2015)</span></p></div></div><p></p><p><span>TRILL WG:
</span></p><p></p><p><span>This begins a 2 week WG LC on
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel-00.txt. This draft is going for
informational RFC to explain the two technical approaches for extending TRILL
protocol to be multi-level. </span></p><p></p><p><span>Please note that
this draft has 2 IPR: </span></p><p></p><p><span><a
href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1813/";>http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1813/</a></span></p><p></p><p><span><a
href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1579/";>http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1579/</a></span></p><p></p><p><span>Each
author of this draft should respond on the list if they know of additional
IPR. </span></p><p></p><p><span>The IESG has recently asked WGs to
consider the value of information documents now and in 5 years.
Therefore, in your comments regarding WG LC, please consider:</span></p><p
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;"><span><span>a)<span style="font:7.0pt Times New
Roman"> </span></span></span><span>Is the draft
technically ready for WG last call?</span></p><p
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;"><span><span>b)<span style="font:7.0pt Times New
Roman"> </span></span></span><span>Will this
architectural type draft be useful to you as you explain these two options of
multi-level TRILL?</span></p><p
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;"><span><span>c)<span style="font:7.0pt Times New
Roman"> </span></span></span><span>Will this
architectural document be critical in 5 years for TRILL
deployments?</span></p><p></p><p><span>Thank you,</span></p><p><span>Sue Hares
and Jon Hudson
</span></p><p></p><p></p></div></div><pre>_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
</pre></blockquote>
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
