[CCAMP]Re: [External] IPR polling - draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-11

["King, Daniel" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs and Secretary,

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.

Thanks, Dan.

From: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 11 September 2024 17:42
To: [e-mail]; King, Daniel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; LE ROUZIC Esther TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [External] IPR polling - draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-11


This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking links or attachments.
Authors, Contributors, CCAMP,

We anticipated that we would handle RFC9093bis and optical impairment topology as a cluster, and we will, but this doesn't prevent us from managing IPR polling and WG last call separately (more efficient). Hence we'll start with the IPR polling for RFC9093 bis.

This is the IPR polling in preparation for the WG last call of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-11.

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above?
Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"

or

"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?
If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"

or

"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

Thanks
Daniele