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

[Keyur Patel <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Corrected draft alias - reply to this one.
    
    On 6/26/17, 6:45 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
    <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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)"
    ><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail]"
    >><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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
    >>>[e-mail]
    >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    >>
    >>_______________________________________________
    >>OSPF mailing list
    >>[e-mail]
    >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >OSPF mailing list
    >[e-mail]
    >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
    
    _______________________________________________
    OSPF mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf