Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Tue, 13 June 2017 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8282126CB6 for <>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7weMdhaYdvc for <>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E7D1294D3 for <>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1796; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497313050; x=1498522650; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0l4JU76g+EOAVEgyYMPu6BMDJQys8xdtWiCR22XzgoM=; b=OQyNBk2Lv8d97yvSm1bGQwSLlfEhBcN69aF7zDzPhDz55nEcgyD1rE7H tFgItM87BLyKYcXdgbi6cohXPAkAHQWBKHJUgLwZ00s799jIhh8u/2DFJ V+ScBtFhZfrwOM7GkfJYb4S9wE4W7i1+Sj+f93Yds5SMTMciPQybNSqAU E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,335,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="439535744"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Jun 2017 00:17:29 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5D0HTm5018736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:17:29 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:17:28 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:17:28 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Martin Vigoureux <>, BESS <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage
Thread-Index: AQHS3s72JJUs5mmC5Ue7jZ6WHp9ET6IhxPWA
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:17:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:17:38 -0000

I support publication of this document. I am not aware of any IPR related
to this doc that hasn¹t already been disclosed.


On 6/6/17, 7:11 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Hello Working Group,
>This email starts a Working Group Last Call on
>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready
>for a final working group review.
>Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent
>version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than
>*20th of June*.
>Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is
>also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as an
>Informational RFC.
>*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
>applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage, to ensure that IPR has been
>disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
>and 5378 for more details).
>If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of
>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage-04 please respond to this email and indicate
>whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document
>or its earlier versions.
>As opposed to the policy [2], we are not polling for knowledge of
>implementations as it does not seem to make sense in that case. If you
>feel otherwise, please let us know.
>Thank you,
>BESS mailing list