Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Mon, 19 February 2018 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03741241F5; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:54:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 3CnbjcpDRBHQ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B651204DA; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:54:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=18442; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519066494; x=1520276094; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=VYLDVYB4HfhJbkGqgsO6/n+KZHPSm5aVuIsgbBK3lLM=; b=HcaS3Hkmly0uyjUQEfsU4tUS1DMQuRf6XUdJK03avfgNbKwRBSdsOPKv XmfcTqoob9xyrosCqzwKAS4eVTgiyriEV5q/oSXjskWKNSJ6RcrXfEJzY IvceNKL1Oo/glKLjNrOdf6EUa8BV7xKq6bBHsct/xQIJCYUDk/FXu//kw I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,536,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="359053126"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Feb 2018 18:54:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1JIsrWh014828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:54:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:54:52 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:54:52 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy
Thread-Index: AQHTqbMfiNzweBWLGEOQDGMU5z8mEw==
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:54:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D20620F57FE446195AF4F3ED6A9E2ECciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy
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: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:54:57 -0000

Hi Stephane, Matthew:

Is there a process for WG call (or WG LC) call that you are following? I thought it is based on maturity of the draft, adoptions of the draft, history of the draft (how long it has been around), and a public request for it.

I am a co-author of the above draft and naturally I support WG call for it; however, I don’t see any request for it. Furthermore, it is relatively a new draft. Whereas, the draft that I requested for a WG call last week is very mature and has already been implemented by a number of vendors. So, I’d like to better understand the criteria that you use for deciding WG call.


From: BESS <> on behalf of "" <>
Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:39 AM
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy

Hello working group,

This email starts a two-week call for adoption on

draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy-01 [1] as a BESS Working Group Document.

Please state on the list if you support the adoption or not (in both cases, please also state the reasons).

This poll runs until *the 5th of March*.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, 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 an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors.

Currently no IPR has been disclosed against this Document.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you

(Martin), Matthew, Stéphane

bess chairs



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.