Hi,
This is a useful and very well-written document. I have some minor comments and
possible syntax corrections for the authors.
Minor:
--
In my opinion, the document should further explain if it's proposing a new
system or outlining what must be there in existing systems. Do we want to
imp
Hi Stefano,
While a bit unorthodox view on SPF, I’d expect any deviations from default SPF
to be in the context of the IGP – I’m OK with the definition as is.
Thanks for your response.
Cheers,
Jeff
On 9/23/16, 00:57, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" wrote:
Hi Jeff,
> On Sep 2
Hello Bruno,
thanks for the detailed reply and apology for my late response.
First, let me re-phrase what I propose. Realized that I never explained
exactly what I had in mind and using the "ignore" keyword was just a bad idea
too. Will avoid "ignore" as this keyword has been used in different
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:25 AM, wrote:
>
>
> > Authors: In parallel with the WGLC, please respond to this message
> (making sure you cc
> > spring@ietf.org) and indicate if you are aware of any relevant IPR.
> Please do this even if it
> > has been previously disclosed. Thanks.
>
> IINM, we ar
I'm not aware of any IPR that hasn't been disclosed previously.
Thanks,
Petr
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 1:33:30 AM
To: John G.Scudder
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPR for dr
Hello everyone,
speaking as co-worker of one of the editors: From my own viewpoint I
think this document makes a lot of sense and is in a good state. I'm not
aware of any problemwith the current state of the document. And there
already is an implementation report. The document should be sent t
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
> sorry for being late. See below.
>
>
>> On Jul 10, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Vainshtein
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I have read the SR Resiliency Use Cases draft and I have an issue with the
>> path
Hi Sasha,
sorry for being late. See below.
> On Jul 10, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Vainshtein
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I have read the SR Resiliency Use Cases draft and I have an issue with the
> path protection use case.
>
> The draft defines this use case with the following constrains/qu
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
>> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12,
>> 2016 4:44 PM
>>
>> Dear SPRING WG (and I've taken the liberty of cc'ing RTGWG),
>>
>> The authors have indicated that draft-ietf-
Jon, Ebben, Petr,
IINM we are missing your reply.
Could you please reply to this IPR call on the SPRING mailing list?
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
> -Original Message-
> From: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:29 AM
> To: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m
Mark, Clarence,
IINM, we are missing IPR statement from you.
Could you please reply to the IPR call, on the spring mailing list?
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
> From: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 11:09 AM
> To: draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-ca...@ietf.org
> Cc: martin
Hi Authors,
> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12,
> 2016 4:44 PM
>
> Dear SPRING WG (and I've taken the liberty of cc'ing RTGWG),
>
> The authors have indicated that draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases is
> ready for WGLC.
> Please send your comme
12 matches
Mail list logo
