Support,
Linda Dunbar
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:50 AM
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi authors, SPRING WG,
In parallel to the call for adoption for
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming (1), we would like to poll for
IPR.
If you are aware of IPR that applies to
I support the working group adoption of this document.
John Leddy
>
>> On Mar 13, 2019, at 7:49 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi SPRING WG,
>>
>> This email initiates a three week call for working group adoption for
>> draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. (Three weeks
Hi,
I support the working group adoption of this document.
Thanks.
s.
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 7:49 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi SPRING WG,
>
> This email initiates a three week call for working group adoption for
> draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. (Three weeks
I am not aware of any IPR other than the one already disclosed.
From: spring on behalf of
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM
To: SPRING WG
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org"
Subject: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi
Hi Joel,
The way I would handle it is to proceed with the current document in SPRING
and use it as indicator of benefits while in the same time issue a new
draft in 6man updating RFC8200 not by duplicating this draft, but using it
as justification for the update.
Going now to 6man with
Linda,
Sorry, the agenda has already been published and is full/oversubscribed.
You are welcome to introduce your draft on the mailing list, in order to raise
awareness and quick off discussions .
Thanks you,
--Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Linda Dunbar
Robert, your description of the conflict situation does not match my
understanding.
A new rFC can always update existing RFCs. However, it can't do so
silently. If this document wants to make a change to 8200's rules, it
needs to say so. And explain the benefit. And have the proposal