Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tue, 11 April 2023 06:32 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DFDC15154D; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXlCe5nPRZwl; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B94DDC14CE46; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Pwbc660mTz8RV7N; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:32:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PwbbX4yk2z501R9; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app07.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.95]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 33B6Vd6n097532; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:39 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:41 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:31:41 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af96434fecd074-c8dcb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202304111431416181327@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <E3E52D3E-1DEB-42B0-97D3-75B4A9904F00@pfrc.org>
References: E3E52D3E-1DEB-42B0-97D3-75B4A9904F00@pfrc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: jhaas@pfrc.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 33B6Vd6n097532
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6434FEF6.000/4Pwbc660mTz8RV7N
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/VQRGASf2GGiv6-J4vp515aY0HYs>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:32:30 -0000
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this document. Best Regards, Xiao Min Original From: JeffreyHaas <jhaas@pfrc.org> To: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo@ietf.org>; Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年04月10日 23:27 Subject: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR check https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo Working Group, The Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo has completed. My judgment is that it has weak, but positive support to proceed to publication. This isn't atypical of BFD work at this point in the BFD Working Group's life. The next steps for the document: 1. Please continue to iterate through the issues raised during last call. I will be summarizing them in the original WGLC thread. I suspect we can reach conclusion for them shortly. 2. Each of the authors needs to make an attestation as to whether they're aware of any additional IPR applicable to this document. The rest of the Working Group, as per BCP 78/79[1] should also disclose of any applicable IPR if they're aware of it. One thing that makes this document particularly interesting is that this work is covered partially under work done in BBF in TR-146. This will be noted in the shepherd writeup. -- Jeff [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html#section-5.1
- draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR che… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Reshad Rahman
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… xiao.min2
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… xiao.min2
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Greg Mirsky
- Fwd: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IP… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo WGLC and IPR… Jeffrey Haas