Hey SPRING, Please be aware of this working group last call in MPLS. Review comments greatly appreciated and should be sent to the MPLS list.
Last call ends 9th January at 9am GMT Cheers, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: mpls <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 18 December 2023 20:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06 Note well: I have inherited Loa's ability to type WGLC announcements 😉 -----Original Message----- From: mpls <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 18 December 2023 20:08 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; 'Carlos Pignataro' <[email protected]> Subject: [mpls] Working Gorup Last Call and IPR Poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-06 Hi, == IPR == Draft authors (Shraddha, Kapil, Mukul, Samson, and Nagendra) and Contributors (Carlos and Zafar), please respond to this email (on list) saying whether or not you are aware of IPR that applies to this document. If so, please state whether this IPR has already been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). Please note that there are two IPR disclosures against the original individual I-Ds (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3937/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5234/), but no explicit disclosure has been made against this document. If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Mach, as document shepherd, will collate the responses. == Working Group Last Call == This email starts a three week last call ending on 9th January at 9am GMT (an extended last call to cover the Festive period). We solicit all opinions on whether this document is ready to move forward, but we are particularly keen to hear reasoned comments with associated reviews. Mach, as document shepherd, will keep track of comments to ensure they are addressed. == Implementation Status == While it is not a requirement (and implementations are not required), it is very helpful to know the present and planned implementation status of documents as they progress to IESG evaluation. Everyone is encouraged to report any implementation status that they are aware of, and the authors are encouraged to add an Implementation Status section to the draft per RFC 7942 even if that is just a note that no implementations are known at the moment. Many thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
