Re: [Rift] WGLC, IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> not aware of any undisclosed IPR
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi RIFTers,
>>
>> This email starts WG Last Call, IPR and implementation polling  for our
>> base spec draft-ietf-rift-rift-08. It ends on 9/27.
>>
>> Please thoroughly review the document and voice your support/objection.
>>
>> If you’re a co-author/contributor, please explicitly respond to this
>> email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed
>> IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and
>> Contributors.
>>
>> If you're not a co-author/contributor, you need to respond only if you
>> are aware of any relevant IPR not yet disclosed in conformance with IETF
>> rules.
>>
>> Currently disclosed IPRs can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rift-rift
>> .
>>
>> We are also polling for any existing implementation.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jeff and Jeffrey
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> From: RIFT <rift-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:06 AM
>> To: rift@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Rift] LC version -08
>>
>> LC ready version -08 has been posted
>>
>> Last few small changes based on input of people playing with both
>> implementations in different scenarios
>>
>> * A new prefix tie type has been added
>> PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType since it is necessary to
>> distinguish between normal prefix and external prefix being disaggregated
>> to preserve priorities in complex redistribution scenarios. BTW, negative
>> prefixes are always least preferred and hence they don't need to
>> differentiate.
>> * Link pair carries now indication whether BFD is up 9on the link. This
>> allows at the top of the fabric not only see links that are secured and
>> outer keys but also whether link is BFD protected/BFD is up
>> * NodeCapabilities are required now and minor protocol version is carried
>> since there was no possiblity on adjacency building to check which minor
>> verswion the peer speaks (major is carried in the envelope). Major version
>> compatibility allows to aways decode the model but minor could be used in
>> the future to understand minor schema variations
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> --- tony
>> _______________________________________________
>> RIFT mailing list
>> RIFT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift
>