IPR attestation for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

BFD Unsolicited Authors, As part of doing the document shepherd writeup for BFD Unsolicited prior to sending it to the IESG for publication, I reviewed the archives to find whether you had done your IPR attestations. You haven't, but were asked at the time. :-) Please respond to this thread as

Re: IPR attestation for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

No I am not aware of any IPR which applies to this document. On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 10:07:33 AM EDT, Jeffrey Haas wrote: BFD Unsolicited Authors, As part of doing the document shepherd writeup for BFD Unsolicited prior to sending it to the IESG for publication, I reviewed the

Re: IPR attestation for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft. Many thx, R. On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > BFD Unsolicited Authors, > > As part of doing the document shepherd writeup for BFD Unsolicited prior > to sending it to the IESG for publication, I reviewed the archives to fi

Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

$ pyang --ietf --max-line-length 69 ietf-bfd-unsolicited\@2021-10-15.yang ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:17: warning: imported module "ietf-bfd" not used ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:22: warning: imported module "ietf-bfd-ip-sh" not used ietf-bfd-unsolici...@2021-10-15.yang:128: wa

Re: IPR attestation for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this document. Thanks. -- Enke On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:40 AM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft. > > Many thx, > R. > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:07 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: >> >> BFD Unsolicited Authors, >> >> A

Re: IPR attestation for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited

I’m not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft. thanks. - Naiming > On Oct 20, 2021, at 7:07 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > BFD Unsolicited Authors, > > As part of doing the document shepherd writeup for BFD Unsolicited prior to > sending it to the IESG for publication, I reviewed the archive

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

Also, starting from rev-04 (I think) we incorrectly have RFC9127 as the reference for the revision. I will change it back to . revision 2021-10-15 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC 9127: A YANG data model for BFD unsolicited"; } On Wednesday, October 20, 20

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

I did added RFC9127 based on Jeff information (in many places of XML as comment) Fixed reference in the YANG to accommodate new number. Fell free to comment it out so RFC editor can quickly adjust :) Best, R. On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:19 PM Reshad Rahman wrote: > Also, starting from rev-04 (I

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

9127 is the RFC-to-be. I think that's likely to stay. There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I haven't seen updated boilerplate issued? -- Jeff > On Oct 20, 2021, at 2:30 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I did added R

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf > boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I haven't seen updated boilerplate > issued? See Section 3.7.1 of RFC 8407 here

Re: Minor nit from shepherd writeup to resolve for BFD unsolicted

> On Oct 20, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > > >> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Haas > > wrote: >> >> There's also a note in the nits that the security considerations netconf >> boilerplate is pointing to older RFCs, but I haven't seen updat