Re: [OSPF] IPR Call for "H-Support for OSPFv2"

Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com> Wed, 28 June 2017 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <padma@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC601275C5; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 c9JsLzUuu0fU; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008D812420B; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DJH66906; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 01:42:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:42:39 +0100
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.142]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.136]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:42:31 -0700
From: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] IPR Call for "H-Support for OSPFv2"
Thread-Index: AQHS7s6X4Wov4XfIrkul8Ncbp0ekHKI49/gAgACJhRA=
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 01:42:30 +0000
Message-ID: <EC7A99B9A59C1B4695037EEB5036666B026AE769@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <D57707A0.B661F%acee@cisco.com> <90474293-0627-48D2-BDD9-82115B50041C@arrcus.com>
In-Reply-To: <90474293-0627-48D2-BDD9-82115B50041C@arrcus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.48.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.59530990.007B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.142, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4f2e0be1ff7722c2d8ef7b0cc4815917
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/bkLigYlzR5fmqTSP6QDUAWLI5xY>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IPR Call for "H-Support for OSPFv2"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 01:42:45 -0000

I am not aware of any IPR

Regards
Padma

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keyur Patel
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 5:29 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IPR Call for "H-Support for OSPFv2"

I am not aware of any undisclosed relevant IPR.

Regards,
Keyur

On 6/26/17, 3:50 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote:

    Corrected draft alias - reply to this one.
    
    On 6/26/17, 6:45 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
    <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote:
    
    >Authors,
    >
    >If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
    >this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
    >response needs to be sent to the OSPF mailing list. The document will
    >not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
    >each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
    > 
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Acee
    >
    >
    >
    >On 6/14/17, 3:48 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
    ><ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The question of OSPFv2 complete blocking of transit routing support
    >>(similar to OSPFv3) seems to come up every year or so. I’d like to WG
    >>last
    >>call this document. Does anyone see any issues?
    >>Thanks,
    >>Acee 
    >>
    >>On 6/14/17, 12:44 PM, "OSPF on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org"
    >><ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
    >>>directories.
    >>>This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of the
    >>>IETF.
    >>>
    >>>        Title           : H-bit Support for OSPFv2
    >>>        Authors         : Keyur Patel
    >>>                          Padma Pillay-Esnault
    >>>                          Manish Bhardwaj
    >>>                          Serpil Bayraktar
    >>>	Filename        : draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-03.txt
    >>>	Pages           : 8
    >>>	Date            : 2017-06-14
    >>>
    >>>Abstract:
    >>>   OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in
    >>>   RFC5340.  If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
    >>>   OSPF topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward
    >>>   the transit traffic.  In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept
    >>>   traffic intended for local delivery.  This draft defines R-bit
    >>>   functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    >>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit/
    >>>
    >>>There are also htmlized versions available at:
    >>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-03
    >>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-03
    >>>
    >>>A diff from the previous version is available at:
    >>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-03
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
    >>>submission
    >>>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    >>>
    >>>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    >>>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
    >>>
    >>>_______________________________________________
    >>>OSPF mailing list
    >>>OSPF@ietf.org
    >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    >>
    >>_______________________________________________
    >>OSPF mailing list
    >>OSPF@ietf.org
    >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >OSPF mailing list
    >OSPF@ietf.org
    >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    
    _______________________________________________
    OSPF mailing list
    OSPF@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf