Re: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

[Gillis, Kurtis]

To whom it may concern, I am not aware of any IPR poll related to this draft.

Cheers,
Kurtis

From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) 
Sent: December 19, 2019 11:52 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; 
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org
Cc: spring 
Subject: 答复: IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

Hi all,

A reminder for this IPR Poll.

The missing authors: R. Parekh, Z. Zhang
The missing contributors: Kurtis Gillis

Please let me know if you have already replied. Thank you!

Best regards,
Shuping


发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 
bruno.decra...@orange.com
发送时间: 2019年11月13日 1:04
收件人: 
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org
抄送: spring mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
主题: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

Hi Authors, SPRING WG,

Authors of draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment [1] have asked for WG 
adoption.
Before the call for working group adoption we would like to poll for IPR.

If you are aware of IPR that applies to 
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment please respond to this email.
If you are aware of IPR, please indicate whether it has been disclosed in
accordance to the IETF IPR rules (detailed are described in RFCs 3979, 4879, 
3669 and 5378).

If you are an *author or contributor* please respond to this email, on the 
SPRING mailing list,
regardless of whether or not you're aware of any IPR. If you are not an
author or contributor, please explicitly respond only if you're aware of
IPR that has not yet been disclosed.

This document will not advance into the working group until such time as
we have received IPR confirmations from all authors and contributors.

Thanks!

Rob & Bruno


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00


_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

[Ron Bonica]

Hi Ali,

I have review what I believe to be the latest  version (in github) and have the 
following comments:

Major



  *   A close reading of Section 3.1.1 reveals that the O-flag is processed 
even when Segments Left is equal to 0. This would make the SRH the only IPv6 
Routing Header that requires processing when Segments Left is equal to zero. Do 
you really want to go there?
  *   In Section 4.1.1, Classic PING isn't used to "ping a remote IP Prefix". 
It is used to query the liveness of an interface.
  *   In Section 4.1.1, N1 sends (A:1::, B:2:C31)(A:5::, B:4:C52, B:2:C31, 
SL=2, NH =  ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). The SRH contains an IPv6 address that 
is not a SID ( A:1:: ). Is this legal?
  *   In Section 4.1.1.1, the PHP is not required. If N5 doesn't understand 
SRH, it skips over it.
  *   In Section 4.2.1, N1 sends a traceroute (A:1::, B:2:C31)(A:5::, B:4:C52, 
B:2:C31, SL=2,). The SRH contains an IPv6 address that is not a SID ( A:1:: ). 
Is this legal?
  *
Minor
-

  *   In Section 3.1.1 you make it clear that you duplicate the packet, forward 
one copy and send the other copy for OAM processing. A strict reading of 
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 suggest that you send the one and only copy of the packet 
for OAM processing. You may forward the packet after OAM processing is 
complete. I don't think that this is what you mean to say.
Nits
-

  *   You might want to reference RFC 2151 for Classic PING and Traceroute
  *   In Paragraph 2 of Section 4.1.2, you say that the PING failed because the 
next header was ICMP and not SRH. That is true if B:4:C52 requires SL to be 
greater than 0, but not true in the general case. In the general case, the PING 
fails because the ENH is ICMP, and B:4:C52 requires something other than ICMP 
as the ENH.



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali) 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:42 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Ole Troan ; 6man WG 
; SPRING WG 
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) 
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your review.

Unfortunately, you seem to have not get the latest version from the Github 
(which was later posted as v03).
Good news is that your comments were addressed in the latest version.

Please see specifics in-line.

Happy Holidays!

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Ron Bonica 
mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 4:07 PM
To: Ole Troan mailto:otr...@employees.org>>, 6man WG 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG 
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 

Ole,

I have reviewed version-02 of this document and believe that it still has the 
following major issues:

- Section 3.1.1 assumes implementation details (e.g., that the implementation 
has an OAM process) but fails to describe any externally observable behavior. 
The externally observable behaviors are described, incompletely, in Sections 
4.1.2 and 4.2.2.

[ZA] Like you mentioned, processing details were embedded in the Section 4. We 
brought them up in the Section 3 and also added additional normative language 
in Section 4. Specifically, In the new revision:

  *   We have added normative text at the beginning of 3.1.1 where O-bit is 
defined.
  *   Sections 3.3 and 3.4 adds normative texts for OAM SIDs.
  *   4.1.2 and 4.2.2 further adds additional normative text for Ping and 
traceroute use-cases, respectively.

- Section 3.5 seems to be incomplete. What TLV are we talking about and what 
role does it play?

[ZA] This has been already addressed. Specifically, indeed, the draft does not 
define any TLV for OAM purposes. However, section was added as future drafts 
may define OAM TLVs. However, the section has been removed in the new revision.

- Section 4 talks about future revisions of this document. Aren't we in WGLC?

[ZA] This has been already addressed in the latest version.

- Section 4.1.2.1 - When the ping succeeds, what does the success message look 
like? An ICMP Echo Response? What is the source address? A SID?

[ZA] Yes, it is an ICMP Echo Response ICMP Echo Response. The v03 specifically 
mentions the same. As mentioned in the draft, the upper layer header processing 
follows RFC4443.

- Section 4.1.2.2 - Does this work with PSP?

[ZA] This does not apply. There is no PSP flavor defined for END.OP SID.

- Section 4.2.2.1 - Do we need to examine flags even when SL == 0?

[ZA] The O-bit is for telemetry purpose and packets with SL=0 are also 
telemetered.



Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-Original Message-
From: ipv6 mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Ole Troan
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 3:53 PM
To: 6man WG mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; SPRING WG 
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Cc: 6man Chairs <

Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls

[Ron Bonica]

Hi Shuping,

My mistake. Please register draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six under “Documents 
requested by authors for WG adoption”.

 Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring  On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 9:41 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura ; SPRING WG List 
Subject: Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Dear Ron, Jeff,

Do you mean to put under the "Documents placed in state "Candidate for WG 
adoption""?

Please note that in the current wiki, this item is only used to place the draft 
when its state is changed to the "Candidate for WG adoption". If I have missed 
such state change email for your draft, please do let me know. Thank you!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Best regards
Shuping


发件人：Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
收件人：SPRING WG List mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
时 间：2019-12-22 06:27:14
主 题：Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Shuping,

Please also add draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-08.

Thanks and happy holidays!

Regards,
Jeff

On Dec 21, 2019, at 12:37, Ron Bonica 
mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
 wrote:

Shuping,

Please add draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six as a candidate for adoption.

   Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On 
Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:58 AM
To: 'SPRING WG List' mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Hi SPRING,

A number of authors have asked for their document to be adopted or last called.
Chairs have some backlog on this. The WG has also been pretty busy over the 
last 6 months with a set of subjects triggering many emails and this is not 
always the best time to ask for review of additional documents (versus short 
‘+1’).
Chairs/WG will work on this calls in 2020. In the meantime, for a better 
transparency, Shuping has been kind enough to track this on the wiki 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/spring
 Thank you Shuping.
If your document is missing from the list of pending calls for adoption/last 
call, please send an email to the chairs or to the list, as you wish.
Otherwise, your request is been tracked.

Content of this page is subject to change. In particular, the goal is not to 
duplicate the information already tracked in the ietf datatracker. E.g. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?name=&sort=&activedrafts=on&by=group&group=spring

I take this opportunity to wish everyone Merry Christmas, an Happy New Year and 
possibly Happy Holidays.
--Bruno



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

[Zafar Ali (zali)]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your detailed review.

This is to acknowledge your email.
Please expect delays in response due to the Christmas break.

Happy Holidays,

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Ron Bonica 
Date: Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:49 PM
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Ole Troan , 6man 
WG , SPRING WG 
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 

Hi Ali,

I have review what I believe to be the latest  version (in github) and have the 
following comments:

Major



  *   A close reading of Section 3.1.1 reveals that the O-flag is processed 
even when Segments Left is equal to 0. This would make the SRH the only IPv6 
Routing Header that requires processing when Segments Left is equal to zero. Do 
you really want to go there?
  *   In Section 4.1.1, Classic PING isn’t used to “ping a remote IP Prefix”. 
It is used to query the liveness of an interface.
  *   In Section 4.1.1, N1 sends (A:1::, B:2:C31)(A:5::, B:4:C52, B:2:C31, 
SL=2, NH =  ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). The SRH contains an IPv6 address that 
is not a SID ( A:1:: ). Is this legal?
  *   In Section 4.1.1.1, the PHP is not required. If N5 doesn’t understand 
SRH, it skips over it.
  *   In Section 4.2.1, N1 sends a traceroute (A:1::, B:2:C31)(A:5::, B:4:C52, 
B:2:C31, SL=2,). The SRH contains an IPv6 address that is not a SID ( A:1:: ). 
Is this legal?
  *
Minor
-

  *   In Section 3.1.1 you make it clear that you duplicate the packet, forward 
one copy and send the other copy for OAM processing. A strict reading of 
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 suggest that you send the one and only copy of the packet 
for OAM processing. You may forward the packet after OAM processing is 
complete. I don’t think that this is what you mean to say.
Nits
-

  *   You might want to reference RFC 2151 for Classic PING and Traceroute
  *   In Paragraph 2 of Section 4.1.2, you say that the PING failed because the 
next header was ICMP and not SRH. That is true if B:4:C52 requires SL to be 
greater than 0, but not true in the general case. In the general case, the PING 
fails because the ENH is ICMP, and B:4:C52 requires something other than ICMP 
as the ENH.



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Zafar Ali (zali) 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:42 AM
To: Ron Bonica ; Ole Troan ; 6man WG 
; SPRING WG 
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) 
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your review.

Unfortunately, you seem to have not get the latest version from the Github 
(which was later posted as v03).
Good news is that your comments were addressed in the latest version.

Please see specifics in-line.

Happy Holidays!

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Ron Bonica 
mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 4:07 PM
To: Ole Troan mailto:otr...@employees.org>>, 6man WG 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, SPRING WG 
mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 

Ole,

I have reviewed version-02 of this document and believe that it still has the 
following major issues:

- Section 3.1.1 assumes implementation details (e.g., that the implementation 
has an OAM process) but fails to describe any externally observable behavior. 
The externally observable behaviors are described, incompletely, in Sections 
4.1.2 and 4.2.2.

[ZA] Like you mentioned, processing details were embedded in the Section 4. We 
brought them up in the Section 3 and also added additional normative language 
in Section 4. Specifically, In the new revision:

  *   We have added normative text at the beginning of 3.1.1 where O-bit is 
defined.
  *   Sections 3.3 and 3.4 adds normative texts for OAM SIDs.
  *   4.1.2 and 4.2.2 further adds additional normative text for Ping and 
traceroute use-cases, respectively.

- Section 3.5 seems to be incomplete. What TLV are we talking about and what 
role does it play?

[ZA] This has been already addressed. Specifically, indeed, the draft does not 
define any TLV for OAM purposes. However, section was added as future drafts 
may define OAM TLVs. However, the section has been removed in the new revision.

- Section 4 talks about future revisions of this document. Aren't we in WGLC?

[ZA] This has been already addressed in the latest version.

- Section 4.1.2.1 - When the ping succeeds, what does the success message look 
like? An ICMP Echo Response? What is the source address? A SID?

[ZA] Yes, it is an ICMP Echo Response ICMP Echo Response. The v03 specifically 
mentions the same. As mentioned in the draft, the upper layer header processing 
follows RFC4443.

- Section 4.1.2.2 - Does this work with PSP?

[ZA] This does not apply. There is no PSP flavor defined for END.OP SID.

- Section 4.2.2.1 - Do we need to examine flags even when SL == 0?

[ZA] The O-bit is for telemetry purpose and packets with SL

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07.txt

[Stefano Salsano]

Il 2019-12-19 12:51, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ha scritto:

We have published a new revision of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming 
that addresses comments received throughout this week.

[...]

-   Renamed Transit Behaviors section as discussed with Adrian


Hi Pablo,

I strongly agree with this change... it was misleading to refer to the 
encapsulation behaviors as "transit" behaviors


please align the terminology according to this change, my suggestions 
follow:


1) in section 7 Security Consideration
errata: This document introduces SRv6 Endpoint and Transit Nodes behaviors
corrige: This document introduces SRv6 Endpoint and SR Policy Headend 
behaviors


2) in section 8.4
errata: The following table summarizes which transit capabilities are
corrige: The following table summarizes which SR Policy Headend 
capabilities are


errata: Table 2: SRv6 transit behaviors signaling
corrige: Table 2: SRv6 Policy Headend behaviors signaling

3) in section 5.1
errata: The H.Encaps transit encapsulation behavior
corrige: The H.Encaps encapsulation behavior

ciao
Stefano



-Original Message-
From: spring  on behalf of "internet-dra...@ietf.org" 

Reply to: "spring@ietf.org" 
Date: Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 12:46
To: "i-d-annou...@ietf.org" 
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" 
Subject: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07.txt

 
 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

 This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of 
the IETF.
 
 Title   : SRv6 Network Programming

 Authors : Clarence Filsfils
   Pablo Camarillo Garvia
   John Leddy
   Daniel Voyer
   Satoru Matsushima
   Zhenbin Li
Filename: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07.txt
Pages   : 38
Date: 2019-12-19
 
 Abstract:

The SRv6 Network Programming framework enables a network operator or
an application to specify a packet packet processing program by
encoding a sequence of instructions in the IPv6 packet header.
 
Each instruction is implemented on one or several nodes in the

network and identified by an SRv6 Segment Identifier in the packet.
 
This document defines the SRv6 Network Programming concept and

specifies the base set of SRv6 behaviors that enables the creation of
interoperable overlays with underlay optimization (Service Level
Agreements).
 
 
 The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming/
 
 There are also htmlized versions available at:

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07
 
 A diff from the previous version is available at:

 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07
 
 
 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

 until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 
 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

 ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
 ___

 spring mailing list
 spring@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
 


___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring




--
***
Stefano Salsano
Professore Associato
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY

http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/

E-mail  : stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it
Cell.   : +39 320 4307310
Office  : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
***

___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

[spring] 答复: WG status - pending calls

[Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)]

Hi Ron,

It has been added.

Shuping

发件人: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2019年12月24日 4:17
收件人: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) ; Jeff Tantsura 
; SPRING WG List 
主题: RE: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Hi Shuping,

My mistake. Please register draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six under “Documents 
requested by authors for WG adoption”.

 Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On 
Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 9:41 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; 
SPRING WG List mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Dear Ron, Jeff,

Do you mean to put under the "Documents placed in state "Candidate for WG 
adoption""?

Please note that in the current wiki, this item is only used to place the draft 
when its state is changed to the "Candidate for WG adoption". If I have missed 
such state change email for your draft, please do let me know. Thank you!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Best regards
Shuping


发件人：Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
收件人：SPRING WG List mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
时 间：2019-12-22 06:27:14
主 题：Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Shuping,

Please also add draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-08.

Thanks and happy holidays!

Regards,
Jeff

On Dec 21, 2019, at 12:37, Ron Bonica 
mailto:rbonica=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
 wrote:

Shuping,

Please add draft-bonica-spring-sr-mapped-six as a candidate for adoption.

   Ron




Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On 
Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:58 AM
To: 'SPRING WG List' mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] WG status - pending calls

Hi SPRING,

A number of authors have asked for their document to be adopted or last called.
Chairs have some backlog on this. The WG has also been pretty busy over the 
last 6 months with a set of subjects triggering many emails and this is not 
always the best time to ask for review of additional documents (versus short 
‘+1’).
Chairs/WG will work on this calls in 2020. In the meantime, for a better 
transparency, Shuping has been kind enough to track this on the wiki 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/spring
 Thank you Shuping.
If your document is missing from the list of pending calls for adoption/last 
call, please send an email to the chairs or to the list, as you wish.
Otherwise, your request is been tracked.

Content of this page is subject to change. In particular, the goal is not to 
duplicate the information already tracked in the ietf datatracker. E.g. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?name=&sort=&activedrafts=on&by=group&group=spring

I take this opportunity to wish everyone Merry Christmas, an Happy New Year and 
possibly Happy Holidays.
--Bruno



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

[spring] 答复: IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

[Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)]

Dear Chairs, all,

We have received IPR confirmations from all authors and contributors of this 
draft.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Best regards,
Shuping


发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 bruno.decra...@orange.com
发送时间: 2019年11月13日 1:04
收件人: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org
抄送: spring 
主题: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

Hi Authors, SPRING WG,

Authors of draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment [1] have asked for WG 
adoption.
Before the call for working group adoption we would like to poll for IPR.

If you are aware of IPR that applies to 
draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment please respond to this email.
If you are aware of IPR, please indicate whether it has been disclosed in
accordance to the IETF IPR rules (detailed are described in RFCs 3979, 4879, 
3669 and 5378).

If you are an *author or contributor* please respond to this email, on the 
SPRING mailing list,
regardless of whether or not you're aware of any IPR. If you are not an
author or contributor, please explicitly respond only if you're aware of
IPR that has not yet been disclosed.

This document will not advance into the working group until such time as
we have received IPR confirmations from all authors and contributors.

Thanks!

Rob & Bruno


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-00


_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring