[mpls] Closed: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-06

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 09 August 2016 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CFE12D0AE; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 01:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] 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 mysiOED29JLS; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 01:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8347B12D519; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 01:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c213-89-108-172.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.108.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9538818013E2; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:59:16 +0200 (CEST)
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <36b04c53-6a5d-fc8f-0a7c-47a3700be51b@pi.nu>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <1af97375-51ca-919c-b1a7-b1ace4ee670c@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:59:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <36b04c53-6a5d-fc8f-0a7c-47a3700be51b@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/0myrCB5Y_49tUtLE4ffHDtg72yI>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Closed: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-06
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 08:59:21 -0000

Working Group,

This working group last call has been closed, we wg consensus and the
request for publication will be sent as soon as the shepherd write-up
is ready.

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair

On 2016-07-18 16:44, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-06.
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
>
> The document shepherd and working group chairs are frequently asked
> about the working group discussions related to any IPR disclosures.
>
> We like to remind the working group that discussion on the content
> and validity of an IPR disclosure should not take place on the MPLS wg
> list or any IETF mailing lists.
>
> However we are looking for simple statements whether you think the
> working group should continue progress the document, regardless of an
> existing IPR disclosure. Please include this information in your
> "support/do not support" when responding to working group adoption
> calls and last calls.
>
> All the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that
> they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates directly to this
> draft.
>
> There are no IPR disclosures directly against draft. However there
> are IPR disclosure against the RFC's that will be obsoleted if
> rfc4379bis is approved.
>
> There is one IPR disclosure against RFC 4379.
>
> There is one IPR disclosure against RFC 6424.
>
> There is one IPR disclosure against RFC 6829.
>
> The other obsoleted draft has no IPR disclosures.
>
> For wglc purposes it is fairly safe to assume that existing IPR
> disclosures will be transferred to rfc4379bis.
>
> This wg last call ends on August 5th, 2016.
>
> /Loa
>
> mpls wg co-chair