IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] 回复: IPR Call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6

zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn Tue, 03 March 2020 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238D23A21D4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 05:56:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IRJuq125KiGV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 05:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8473A0A8E for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 05:56:12 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.92:14753.1049667324
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-113.66.217.12?logid-77912A60807A46CCABFF5A39AEEE1F51 (unknown [172.18.0.92]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 90FC028008F; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 21:56:02 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44031110@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.92]) by App0021 with ESMTP id 77912A60807A46CCABFF5A39AEEE1F51 for idr@ietf.org; Tue Mar 3 21:56:06 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 77912A60807A46CCABFF5A39AEEE1F51
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.92
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <000701d5eb18$71a02200$54e06600$@ndzh.com> <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D936450D6@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D936450D6@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:55:59 +0800
Message-ID: <031d01d5f163$7b284270$7178c750$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_031E_01D5F1A6.894C45C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFAt0LXlOPhuENPHBUN7FNDwzFqTAJsewNiqU30NuA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AL6eCEMckYYagMD2cm0UjTjuTH8>
Subject: [Idr] 回复: IPR Call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 13:56:18 -0000

I am not aware of any IPR related with the draft. Thanks.

B.R.

Zhu Yongqing

 

发件人: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> 代表 Lizhenbin
发送时间: 2020年2月25日 10:39
收件人: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Idr] IPR Call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6

 

I am not aware of any IPR related with the draft.

 

 

Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 9:44 PM
To: idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org> 
Subject: [Idr] IPR Call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6

 

Greetings: 

 

This begins a IPR call for /raft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6-02.txt.  The adoption
call will begin after all authors have responded to this email with an IPR
statement.  For the authors who have responded before, you will need to
respond to this email message as well.  

 

A bit thanks to the authors who have waited patiently for the IDR chairs.  

 

For the WG general discussion on IDR flow specification,  this call is to
inquiry if this draft’s approach is useful.   As has been discussed on the
list, the IETF 107 IDR working group meeting will need to decide if all
additions to flow specification should go into  a version 2 specification.


 

In order to have a fruitful discussion regarding the amount of additions for
flow specification, we will be calling for the WG to discuss any potential
Flow specification drafts. 

 

Cheers, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email