Not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
-m
Le 2019-08-19 à 16:32, Stephane Litkowski a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll
> for draft-rabadan-bess-vendor-evpn-route-07 [1]
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
> list.
>
> We
since we are discussing that topic,
maybe the WG would like to reach a conclusion on how to treat that erratum:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5738
Thanks
-m
Le 2019-06-27 à 11:15, Xiejingrong a écrit :
> Thanks for the RFC historical lessons.
>
> --there was historically some assumption
WG,
I have asked the authors to submit a new revision with the new text.
I know this is before the end of this additional review period but I
wanted to have a (thin) chance to get this on the last IESG telechat of
2018.
The draft is moving to IETF LC so you still have the opportunity to
Hello Suresh,
thank you for your review.
This NLRI is in fact defined in 6514 and the determination of the length
of the IP address field is clarified in 6515, section 2 item 3.
-m
Le 2018-10-25 à 5:05, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>
Ben,
thank you for your review.
Regarding your substantive COMMENT: the disclosure came at the time of
WG adoption. The WG was thus specifically informed of that and given an
extra week to (re)consider the positions already expressed.
The existence of the IPR was also mentioned and referenced
