Clarence, Dave, Francis, Tim, Steven, and Luay, we still need your
answers to the IPR question.
WG, we'd welcome that more opinions -in support or not- be expressed on
the list.
Thanks
-m
Le 24/07/2016 14:55, John G. Scudder a écrit :
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting, working group
On 8/15/16, 6:53 AM, "spring on behalf of Eric C Rosen"
wrote:
>On 8/12/2016 1:43 AM, Rob Shakir wrote:
>>> On 5 Aug 2016, at 14:31, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>> The document goes on to sketch an application that could be run over
>>>the hierarchy, the application of setting up pseudowires with
Support the WG adoption as co-author, not aware of any IPR
On 7/25/16, 1:35 AM, "spring on behalf of Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)"
wrote:
>As co-author, I support the adoption of this document to WG item.
>
>I¹m not aware of any IPR that hasn¹t been disclosed already.
>
>s.
>
>
>> On Jul 24, 2016
On 8/12/2016 1:43 AM, Rob Shakir wrote:
On 5 Aug 2016, at 14:31, Eric C Rosen wrote:
The document goes on to sketch an application that could be run over the hierarchy, the
application of setting up pseudowires with SLA. Then it gives an example of how one
might (or might not) set up a contr
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 14:31, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> The document goes on to sketch an application that could be run over the
> hierarchy, the application of setting up pseudowires with SLA. Then it gives
> an example of how one might (or might not) set up a control plane to run the
> example
As not a co-author I support the adoption of this document. It is to be
used as deployment guideline and contains very useful examples for ops and
network engineering teams.
It has been discussed that IETF drafts should not be limited to protocol
specifications. In general we publish a lot of dry
I'm afraid I really don't understand just what the point of adopting
this document would be.
All the document really says is that one can improve scale by using
hierarchy. That is certainly true, but hardly a new result. The
document gives two examples of hierarchical structure: a two-level
Hi,
Apologies, this document uses my old e-mail address on it.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 06:55, John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> Authors, please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if so,
> whether it has been disclosed. Also, the length of the author list for this
> document greatly
John, all
I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR.
--Bruno
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:56 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] WG adoption requested for
>
As co-author, I support the adoption of this document to WG item.
I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already.
s.
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:55 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested for
> draft‐fils
Support as co-author
not aware of any relevant IPR that has not been previously disclosed.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 6:10 AM Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE) <
wim.henderi...@nokia.com> wrote:
> As a co-author is support WG adoption.
> Not aware of IPR related to this draft
>
>
>
>
> On 24
As a co-author is support WG adoption.
Not aware of IPR related to this draft
On 24/07/16 14:55, "spring on behalf of John G. Scudder"
wrote:
>Dear WG,
>
>As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested for
>draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect. Please re
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested for
draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect. Please reply to the list with
your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support
adoption. Non-authors are especially encouraged to com
13 matches
Mail list logo
