Hi, all
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
Regards
Peng Liu
liupeng...@chinamobile.com
From: Du Zongpeng
Date: 2022-04-10 09:49
To: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Kent Watsen'; 'Qin Wu'; 'Peng Liu'; 'Mohamed Boucadair'
CC: 'Liang Geng'; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IPR Poll on
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:00 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> My opinion remains the same that RFC 4001 got it right with types
> including the zone specification being the exception rather than the
> default. I know that when people think IP address, they think the dotted 4
>
Hi Andy,
My opinion remains the same that RFC 4001 got it right with types including the
zone specification being the exception rather than the default. I know that
when people think IP address, they think the dotted 4 octet without “%”
appended. I’d still like to know if there are
I hate when people selectively snip my Emails and respond out of context.
Please don't do that in the future! I'll reply to the more constructive thread.
Acee
On 4/8/22, 4:45 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Randy Presuhn" wrote:
Hi -
On 2022-04-08 12:25 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
...
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 9:51 AM Randy Presuhn <
randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On 2022-04-09 4:36 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> ...
> > FWIW, I'm not arguing for this change; however, to be fair, isn't this
> > also about the existing published modules that are using the
Hi -
On 2022-04-09 4:36 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
...
FWIW, I'm not arguing for this change; however, to be fair, isn't this
also about the existing published modules that are using the incorrect
type?
No. "Incorrect type" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's like
saying using "int32"
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
Regards, Benoit
On 4/8/2022 8:09 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
[ Note: existing IPR declaration: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4216 ]
Authors, Contributors, WG,
As part of WG Last Call:
Are you aware of any IPR that
Randy Presuhn writes:
30+ years of tradition (and BCP) not permitting types to be changed
after they've been published, I suppose, motivated by our total lack
of control over unpublished usage of these types after their definitions
have been published.
If there were actually something wrong
From: tom petch
Sent: 08 April 2022 17:32
From: Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 07 April 2022 18:51
Given that you are asking for an incompatible change to an existing
module, the shoe would seem to be on the other foot.
If you could show it was necessary to make such an incompatible
