I've highlighted the relevant conditions in this snippet of the IPR:

"A method comprising: forwarding traffic received on a first down= link connection with a dual-homed device to an uplink connection with a net= work core; detecting a failure on the uplink connection with the network core; = and in response to detecting the failure, notifying a standby device of the= failure and sending a message to the dual-homed device to trigger the dual-h= omed device to begin forwarding traffic to the network core via a second do= wnlink connection between the standby device and the dual-homed device.&nbs= p;

As you know, the ICCP draft covers both PW redundancy as well as AC re= dundancy for Ethernet Link Aggregation Group. Furthermore, for each redunda= ncy mechanism it covers the following three types of failures:

-Attachment Circuit Failures

- PE Node Failure

- PE Isolation from the core

The IPR concerns only the PE isolation failure for the multi-chassis L= AG (mLACP), and in particular only covers the text in the first paragraph o= f section 9.2.2.4 of the draft. This is the text that we proposed to change= per the two suggestions below. The rest of the draft is not impacted by the IPR.

Regards,

Samer

From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:34= PM
To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)"= ; <ssalam@cisco.com>, "<= a href=3D"mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'And= rew G. Malis'" <andrew.g= .malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@iet= f.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>,= "draft-ietf-pw= e3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pwe3= -iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)= " <stbryant@cisco.com>=
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco= 's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Samer

I read the patent application, and= disagree with your interpretation of its scope.

The first and second independent c= laims are very general,

and claim any mechanism that has a= multihomed device speaking with 2 PEs

which exchange messages over an IC= CP channel.

This is basically the entire draft= .

There is no specification that the= PEs are co-located or not, whether the channel is shared or not, etc.=

Y(J)S

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org]On Be= half Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:43
To: Yaakov Stein; adrian@oldd= og.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi,

To further clarify: two ways of implementin= g the described procedure were identified in the course of the discussions,= one without the IPR and one with. The current draft only captures the latter because it offers better reversion = time characteristics (note that failover protection time is comparable for = both, it is primarily the reversion time upon recovery that is different). = With the approval of the other co-authors, we would be happy to:

1- Either Capture only the option without t= he IPR, OR

2- Capture both options with the above trad= eoff highlighted

Regards,

Samer

From: Yaakov Stein <yaak= ov_s@rad.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk= " <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.= ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
Resent-From: <yaakov_s@rad.co= m>
Resent-To: <lmartini@cisco.= com>, <sajassi@cisco.com= >, <satoru.mat= sushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>, <= ssalam@cisco.com>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM

Adrian,

I support removal of the procedure= .

Timely disclosure is required if I= PR is "essential" for an implementation to be compliant with an R= FC.

Even if the procedure is optional,= if it is written up in the RFC it is part of the IETF's definition<= span style=3D"color:black">

of the behavior, and thus when par= ties choose to implement that option the IPR becomes essential.

This is not the case of IPR being = one way of implementing a described procedure.

I think that the IPR holders shoul= d support removal of the procedure as well,

as their lack of disclosure could = lead to a patent (if granted) being ruled unenforceable.

Y(J)S

From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00
To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; d= raft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09<= /p>

=

Hi,

Samer said:<= span style=3D"color:black">

> the use of the= IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a speci= fic error scenario.

That makes me wonde= r whether the WG would like to consider another way of handling this specif= ic error scenario, or even simply to remove the optional procedure.

What do people thin= k?

Thanks,

Adrian

From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50
To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org<= /a>; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09<= /p>

Hi Andy,

First and foremost we apolog= ize for the late filing, it was an oversight on our part. While there is no= excuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution o= f the document, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft i= n a later version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as = part of the initial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR disclosure earlier, and = it only came to our attention when we were updating version =9609 of the dr= aft, since the patent was allowed in that same timeframe.

That said, we wish to clarif= y that the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional = procedure for a specific error scenario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by= Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'.

Regards,

Samer

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" &= lt;pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.iet= f.org" <= draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-= ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

---------- Forwarded message= ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf= -ipr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09
To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.co= m, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ip= r-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com

Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "= ;Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp)= was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is<= br> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."&qu= ot;);

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C7607xmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Nov 5 15:08:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875E221F8654 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:08:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W5HbheN8HxMD for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:08:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay01-q.rad.co.il [80.74.100.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0ED21F8449 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:07:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay01 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Nov 2012 01:17:40 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 01:07:52 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Andrew G. Malis'" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNssZ2hDULhzINrUWOvzmgdKUXrpfKGoSAgAL1AACABgSFgIAAYayAgAhebLD//+kPAIAALsdA Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:07:51 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E6429@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E621B@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C7607@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C7607@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.232.33.112] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E6429EXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A090208.509846C9.00B0,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:08:06 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E6429EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Samer I agree that the application only covers uplink failures from PEs towards t= he network core. Thus it is not relevant to other failure locations. Almost any method that desires to protect against such failures needs to de= tect that uplink failure (except 1+1 or triangle routing). Likewise, almost any multichassis method requires telling the multihomed de= vice to send to the other PE. Y(J)S From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam= er Salam (ssalam) Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 00:09 To: Yaakov Stein; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi Yaakov, The first claim restricts the scope of the IPR to the scenario where the tw= o conditions are met: 1. PE is isolated from the core and 2. PE sends a message to the dual-homed CE to inform the latter of this = condition I've highlighted the relevant conditions in this snippet of the IPR: "A method comprising: forwarding traffic received on a first downlink conne= ction with a dual-homed device to an uplink connection with a network core;= detecting a failure on the uplink connection with the network core; and in= response to detecting the failure, notifying a standby device of the failu= re and sending a message to the dual-homed device to trigger the dual-homed= device to begin forwarding traffic to the network core via a second downli= nk connection between the standby device and the dual-homed device. As you know, the ICCP draft covers both PW redundancy as well as AC redunda= ncy for Ethernet Link Aggregation Group. Furthermore, for each redundancy m= echanism it covers the following three types of failures: -Attachment Circuit Failures - PE Node Failure - PE Isolation from the core The IPR concerns only the PE isolation failure for the multi-chassis LAG (m= LACP), and in particular only covers the text in the first paragraph of sec= tion 9.2.2.4 of the draft. This is the text that we proposed to change per = the two suggestions below. The rest of the draft is not impacted by the IPR= . Regards, Samer From: Yaakov Stein > Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:34 PM To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" >, "ad= rian@olddog.co.uk" >, "'Andrew G. Malis'" >, "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Samer I read the patent application, and disagree with your interpretation of its= scope. The first and second independent claims are very general, and claim any mechanism that has a multihomed device speaking with 2 PEs which exchange messages over an ICCP channel. This is basically the entire draft. There is no specification that the PEs are co-located or not, whether the c= hannel is shared or not, etc. Y(J)S From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-boun= ces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam) Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:43 To: Yaakov Stein; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Andrew = G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.= ietf.org Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi, To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described procedure were i= dentified in the course of the discussions, one without the IPR and one wit= h. The current draft only captures the latter because it offers better reve= rsion time characteristics (note that failover protection time is comparabl= e for both, it is primarily the reversion time upon recovery that is differ= ent). With the approval of the other co-authors, we would be happy to: 1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR 2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted Regards, Samer From: Yaakov Stein > Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" >, "'Andrew G. Malis'" >, "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.= org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Resent-From: > Resent-To: >, >, >, > Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM Adrian, I support removal of the procedure. Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential" for an implementation t= o be compliant with an RFC. Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in the RFC it is par= t of the IETF's definition of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement that option the = IPR becomes essential. This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a described proce= dure. I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the procedure as wel= l, as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if granted) being ruled= unenforceable. Y(J)S From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00 To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)' Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi, Samer said: > the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional proce= dure for a specific error scenario. That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider another way of h= andling this specific error scenario, or even simply to remove the optional= procedure. What do people think? Thanks, Adrian From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounc= es@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam) Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50 To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-i= ccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi Andy, First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an oversight on= our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure th= e WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution of the docu= ment, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft in a later = version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of the ini= tial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR d= isclosure earlier, and it only came to our attention when we were updating = version -09 of the draft, since the patent was allowed in that same timefra= me. That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not mandatory in t= he draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error scenario. Furthe= rmore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by Cisco = under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. Regards, Samer From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM To: "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pw= e3-iccp-09 To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp: PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This leads = to two important questions: 1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-ma= rtini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously= with the publication of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads = to the difficult question of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more = than four years after the initial filing and almost three years from the pu= blic publication of the filing. The chairs would like the authors to respo= nd to the lateness of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF'= s IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well, and el= sewhere as well. 2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an opi= nion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the disclo= sure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published. Thanks, Andy and Matthew ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat > Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09 To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.com, satoru.mats= ushima@tm.softbank.co.jp Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Inter-Cha= ssis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure i= s "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.""); The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E6429EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Samer

I agree that the application only covers uplink failures fro= m PEs towards the network core.

Thus it is not relevant to other failure locations.

Almost any method that desires to protect against such failu= res needs to detect that uplink failure

(except 1+1 or triangle routing).

Likewise, almost any multichassis method requires telling th= e multihomed device to send to the other PE.

Y(J)S

From: pwe3-bou= nces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 00:09
To: Yaakov Stein; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.= org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi Yaakov,

The first claim restricts the scope of the IPR to the scenario= where the two conditions are met:

PE is isolated from the co= re and
PE sends a message to the = dual-homed CE to inform the latter of this condition

I've highlighted the relevant conditions in this snippet of th= e IPR:

"A method comprising: forwarding traffic received on a fi= rst downlink connection with a dual-homed device to an uplink connection wi= th a network core; detecting a failure on the uplink connection with the network core; = and in response to detecting the failure, notifying a standby device of the= failure and sending a message to the dual-homed device to trigger the dual-h= omed device to begin forwarding traffic to the network core via a second do= wnlink connection between the standby device and the dual-homed device.&nbs= p;

As you know, the ICCP draft covers both PW redundancy as well = as AC redundancy for Ethernet Link Aggregation Group. Furthermore, for each= redundancy mechanism it covers the following three types of failures:

-Attachment Circuit Failures

- PE Node Failure

- PE Isolation from the core

The IPR concerns only the PE isolation failure for the multi-c= hassis LAG (mLACP), and in particular only covers the text in the first par= agraph of section 9.2.2.4 of the draft. This is the text that we proposed to change per the two sugg= estions below. The rest of the draft is not impacted by the IPR.=

Regards,

Samer

From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@= rad.com>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:34 PM
To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org&= quot; <draft-ietf= -pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Samer
<= /p>
I read the patent application, and disagree with your interp= retation of its scope.=

<= /p>
The first and second independent claims are very general,

and claim any mechanism that has a multihomed device speakin= g with 2 PEs

which exchange messages over an ICCP channel.

This is basically the entire draft.

<= /p>
There is no specification that the PEs are co-located or not= , whether the channel is shared or not, etc.

<= /p>
Y(J)S
<= /p>

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org]On Be= half Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:43
To: Yaakov Stein; adrian@oldd= og.co.uk; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09<= /p>

=

Hi,

To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described pro= cedure were identified in the course of the discussions, one without the IP= R and one with. The current draft only captures the latter because it offers better reversion = time characteristics (note that failover protection time is comparable for = both, it is primarily the reversion time upon recovery that is different). = With the approval of the other co-authors, we would be happy to:=

1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR

2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted

Regards,<= /p>

Samer

From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@= rad.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk= " <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.= ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
Resent-From: <yaakov_s@rad.co= m>
Resent-To: <lmartini@cisco.= com>, <sajassi@cisco.com= >, <satoru.mat= sushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>, <= ssalam@cisco.com>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM

Adrian,

<= /p>
I support removal of the procedure.

<= /p>
Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential"= ; for an implementation to be compliant with an RFC.

<= /p>
Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in th= e RFC it is part of the IETF's definition

of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement t= hat option the IPR becomes essential.

This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a = described procedure.
<= /p>
I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the p= rocedure as well,

as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if grant= ed) being ruled unenforceable.

<= /p>
Y(J)S
<= /p>
<= /p>

From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00
To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; d= raft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09<= /p>

=

Hi,

<= /p>
Samer said:

<= /p>
> the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is= an optional procedure for a specific error scenario.

<= /p>
That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider a= nother way of handling this specific error scenario, or even simply to remo= ve the optional procedure.
<= /p>
What do people think?

<= /p>
Thanks,=

Adrian<= /p>
<= /p>

From:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50
To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org<= /a>; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09<= /p>

Hi Andy,<= /p>

First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an= oversight on our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, we wish= to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution of the d= ocument, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft in a lat= er version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of= the initial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR disclosure earlier, and it only c= ame to our attention when we were updating version –09 of the draft, = since the patent was allowed in that same timeframe.

That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not m= andatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error sce= nario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by= Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'.

Regards,<= /p>

Samer

From: "Andrew G. Malis&qu= ot; <andrew.g.malis@verizo= n.com>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" &= lt;pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.iet= f.org" <= draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-= ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp:<= br>
PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This l= eads to two important questions:

1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-ma= rtini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously= with the publication of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads = to the difficult question of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more than four years after the initia= l filing and almost three years from the public publication of the filing.&= nbsp; The chairs would like the authors to respond to the lateness of the f= iling, given the many announcements of the IETF's IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note We= ll, and elsewhere as well.

2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an opi= nion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the disclo= sure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published.

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf= -ipr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09
To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.co= m, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ip= r-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com

Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "= ;Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp)= was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is<= br> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."&qu= ot;);

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E6429EXRAD5adradcoil_-- From amalis@gmail.com Tue Nov 6 12:43:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22E421F8AB0 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:43:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4PLUT6IXD5jT for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:43:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BCE21F8AA9 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so814951lbo.31 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:43:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=LH4UC1fGf9IfriWnsBe4mIBcKqoqa4xG7QHgbjiq+Gc=; b=v6svm51ii9ZaNQ6uLYOiBV+zfm6pUJdis8UimBlz3fhMjO2YMG9ZPzYGvRnq0gH5Ey 0DuhL8DRMtfUtL/ZLiMmnqr30aCRxZzgePo/EIx+O8hWHKDWX1zzlIxiZ7zl/dqFiZEc rRFi7PXdEzFFUuT8/6mJNEq+229lFmvnznnz+ELed3w8x8BBonTbS4Q/Pg+RpFtL5nGT 2ks4IhK0BwYWPgDgSjqa6ihRhnFGP3e/OsGbsF18Un/JRwxZH273TXnfbHAkvU4F8WUX kX4dVRQrgPmmMKPOz77nW2rSOuZMo5Eaiaq3ZxFGEblpzR+GabcxlCB9J1oqjtVmp+JA w0wQ== Received: by 10.112.17.40 with SMTP id l8mr1020846lbd.58.1352234626503; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:43:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.62.101 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:43:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121024213116.29724.2375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20121024213116.29724.2375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:43:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fb6590d58a04cdd9a87d Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: Last Call: (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:43:49 -0000 --f46d0401fb6590d58a04cdd9a87d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 PWE3ers, The draft below is now in IETF last call, and may be of interest to WG participants. Please read the draft, and if you have comments, send them directly to ietf@ietf.org (see the instructions in the email). Comments are due by 9 November. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: The IESG Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM Subject: Last Call: (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs) to Proposed Standard To: IETF-Announce Cc: mpls@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. --f46d0401fb6590d58a04cdd9a87d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PWE3ers,

The draft below is now in IETF last call, and may be of int= erest to WG participants. Please read the draft, and if you have comments, = send them directly to ietf@ietf.org (s= ee the instructions in the email). Comments are due by 9 November.

Cheers,
Andy

---------- Forwarded = message ----------
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary= @ietf.org>
Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mp= ls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt> (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pse= udowire FECs) to Proposed Standard
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs'
=A0 <draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11= -09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In eith= er case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

=A0 =A0Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping=
=A0 =A0and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate =A0 =A0data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.=
=A0 =A0The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified<= br> =A0 =A0for IPv6 address usage.

=A0 =A0This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so =A0 =A0they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-p= w-lsp-ping/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls= -ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

--f46d0401fb6590d58a04cdd9a87d-- From mach.chen@huawei.com Fri Nov 9 06:06:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697C821F869B for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 06:06:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvn4S1Ahu3PU for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 06:06:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E0621F8695 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 06:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMO65000; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:06:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:06:25 +0000 Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:06:41 +0000 Received: from SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.192]) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.155]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:06:34 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com" Thread-Topic: Ask for WG adoptioin on draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-07 Thread-Index: AQHNvoNssjpfWl9aSUmKdf0hplHKBQ== Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:06:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.152.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Ping Pan , "attila.takacs@ericsson.com" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "Caowei \(Wayne\)" Subject: [PWE3] Ask for WG adoptioin on draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-07 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:06:46 -0000 Hi,=20 We have presented the updates on Monday's meeting, the latest version solve= d the comments received so far. As suggested on the meeting, we (co-authors= ) would like to request a WG adoption on the draft! Many thanks, Mach= From loa@pi.nu Fri Nov 9 09:16:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC4521F87B1; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:16:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AePBL7wKg0aj; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pi.nu (ns1.elverljung.se [195.206.248.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88B921F879F; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76A49824E7; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:15:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <509D3A4C.40708@pi.nu> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:15:56 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pwe3@ietf.org References: <50782094.5050104@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <50782094.5050104@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , MPLS-TP ad hoc team , draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib@tools.ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] wglc on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01 and OPEN - Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:16:01 -0000 PWE3 Working Group, ------------------- this is to start a one week PWE3 working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01. Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org), yes it is the mpls wg mailing list that is intended. Any practical problems with this, please send the mail to me and I will forward it. Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the document as is also indications of support. This working group last call will end on November 17. MPLS Working Group, ------------------- when we started the working last call for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam- id-mib-01 we forgot to include the pwe3 working in this wglc. The chairs of the two groups discussed this and agreed to start a 1 week working group last call in the PWEe working group; "after" the IETF meeting in Atlanta. This mail starts this wglc. Since we want the PWE3 and MPLS WG comment on the same version of the draft, we will leave the MPLS wg last call open until we close the wglc in PWE3. /Loa for all the co-chairs On 2012-10-12 15:52, Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group, > > this is to start a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01. > > Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing > list (mpls@ietf.org). > > Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the > document as is also indications of support. > > This working group last call will end on October 28. > > /Loa > for the wg co-chairs -- Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Nov 11 11:44:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE1021F84CD for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:44:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AeMjWUNVb1dF for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FCB21F84B7 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id qABJi0AN021494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:44:00 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.36]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:44:00 +0100 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:43:58 +0100 Thread-Topic: WG last last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01 Thread-Index: Ac3AROUGhG4zrsULTGCWGsKzUrFBxA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CCC5B07E38EC2matthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: [PWE3] WG last last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:44:08 -0000 --_000_CCC5B07E38EC2matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The MPLS working group recently concluded a working group last call on wg l= ast last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01. Since this draft also de= fines MIB entries relevant to pseudowires, we have decided to run a short w= orking group last call in PWE3 as well. Please review the draft and post any comments to the list. This working group last call finishes on Monday 19th November 2012. Regards Matthew and Andy --_000_CCC5B07E38EC2matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The MPLS working group r= ecently concluded a working group last call on wg last last call on dr= aft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01. Since this draft also defines MIB entries r= elevant to pseudowires, we have decided to run a short working group last c= all in PWE3 as well.

Please review the draft and p= ost any comments to the list.

This working group l= ast call finishes on Monday 19th November 2012.

Re= gards

Matthew and Andy

--_000_CCC5B07E38EC2matthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From jie.dong@huawei.com Mon Nov 12 18:42:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FF721F8842 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:42:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHarxGEdT4+H for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E2821F8841 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALL84481; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:42:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:42:28 +0000 Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:42:35 +0000 Received: from SZXEML504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.86]) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.161]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:42:26 +0800 From: Jie Dong To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Ask for WG adoption on draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe-03 Thread-Index: Ac3BSIL7CinyN101TZ+Bk4LLn6bweA== Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:42:26 +0000 Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927325A61CD@szxeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.164] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927325A61CDszxeml504mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "Wanghaibo \(Rainsword\)" Subject: [PWE3] Ask for WG adoption on draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:42:38 -0000 --_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927325A61CDszxeml504mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, We have presented this draft on PWE3 session in IETF85. As suggested on the= meeting, we (co-authors) would like to request WG adoption of the draft. Best regards, Jie --_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927325A61CDszxeml504mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

We have presented this draft on PWE3 session in IETF85. As suggested on the= meeting, we (co-authors) would like to request WG adoption of the draft.
Best regards,
Jie

--_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927325A61CDszxeml504mbxchi_-- From stbryant@cisco.com Tue Nov 13 00:54:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1948921F8617; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:54:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elRqStyqZF0M; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:54:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E1C21F85EB; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:54:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2931; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352796884; x=1354006484; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NW3q4l9eCzFkCE0SuIF6tlVI85Pf+m7bFPZQy81qYv0=; b=ZF9eo+cvUCrfbvBimpwqDZ8lSHDBwHKw+T0Na3HdGw5SHgvTtFWWyngB 0gXBR1jjJpzItCLY6HoQ0QwdbogsM1VMBa2kgF3YPfx4+3UF4VGerBPar a1Qul3e6VfSkewjbLrK9vJkbf4C42mQiIgxVIKfkSpYs1VjUVDn++uKBQ g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAKAIolCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEw3OBCIIeAQEBAwESAScxDgULAgEIGB4QMiUCBA4FCRmHYgYLmiCPZZA4jCEahVlhA5JKgzKOWIFrgm+BZBc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6894"; a="138792758" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2012 08:54:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAD8sUlr023372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:54:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.200]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:54:30 -0600 From: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" Thread-Topic: Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHNwTSteLB/sLSjEUidr63vudh+65fnX7mAgAAW2W4= Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:54:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121113002020.8046.81609.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D92DBD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D92DBD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19360.002 x-tm-as-result: No--52.655200-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "" , "" , The IESG , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:54:47 -0000 Hi Carlos, Not entirely, and I need to update my discuss. I think that the draft really needs a review by a couple of PWE3 RFC4447 ex= perts to make sure nothing got missed, and I see no evidence that anyone fr= om PWE3 did a detailed review. However, there is a point that only came to mind as I thought about the dra= ft over night. In order to support IPv6 we will need to do a s/w update at = both PEs. Thus the WG should consider whether it wishes to continue to supp= ort both FEC 128 and 129, or whether this is an opportunity to retire FEC 1= 28. The only issue that I can think of with retiring 128 is if you have leg= acy 128 equipment behind a 6 to 4 translator, but I wonder how likely such = a scenario really is. Anyway I am concerned that this is a discussion that should have taken plac= e in PWE3 before the draft got this far. Stewart Sent from my iPad On 13 Nov 2012, at 01:32, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" wrote: > Stewart, >=20 > This document replaces an individual document that was initially presente= d simultaneously to the MPLS and PWE3 WGs (circa IETF82 timeframe). At the = time (before this document was adopted as an MPLS WG item) we discussed wit= h the chairs from both WGs and decided to progress it in MPLS, mainly becau= se it was updating RFC 4379 and updating definitions created in the MPLS WG= .=20 >=20 > The PWE3 working group has been reviewing this document from when it was = an individual contribution, all the way to IETF LC. Here's some pointers to= that effect: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12676.html // Sent t= o both lists. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12677.html // PWE3 c= hair commenting on it, both on the MPLS and PWE3 lists. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12808.html // Sent t= o both lists. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg13332.html // All th= e way to IETF LC in both lists. >=20 > Does this address your concern? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > -- Carlos. >=20 > On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >=20 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not >> taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their >> document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related >> documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on >> with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. >>=20 >> As far as I am able to determin, this document was not reviewed by the >> PWE3 WG, thus the main purpose of this discuss is to make sure that this >> has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. >=20 From stbryant@cisco.com Tue Nov 13 01:16:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218FD21F8676; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLEsOjE8QiqW; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193BC21F8646; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Stewart Bryant" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.36 Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:17:00 -0000 Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in the PWE3 WG. From cpignata@cisco.com Tue Nov 13 15:16:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1C921F878F; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:16:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5uR1u2i6Nhkt; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B29221F8751; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:16:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352848613; x=1354058213; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=3ekrd4/QETCD0hlu3u6QSdcndNrKZoyqYX1NH9ubzB8=; b=hEH/i/nMT7iBXLU8w4R+L2TpB8685uUN9b5FW17iuq1wnVxwihkjR7fl OQuOqALgvwpEf4Tz8zkHLXpKnc2HfvoHHw3zKrOUSHXIehSAAoIdtyzlV cVR7m3216vsE3sv6DebTu1QKsf2dKYRkOhnVSMD6/6kIaLCOveOGUdDOx c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgFAG7TolCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEhzWzCYh5gQiCHwEBAgISAVgOEAIBCCIdBzIUEQIEDgUIARmHaAuaeo9lkCWMKhqFWWEDkkqETo08gWuCb4FkFx4 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6895"; a="142065408" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2012 23:16:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qADNGqZP031372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:16:52 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.217]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:16:52 -0600 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" Thread-Topic: Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHNwTTNXweTdZ5enUO5HxEZgM/HeZfnX7mAgAB7bYCAAPDvgA== Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D9690F@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> References: <20121113002020.8046.81609.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D92DBD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.150.52.47] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19360.002 x-tm-as-result: No--56.060100-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D9690Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "" , "" , The IESG , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:16:54 -0000 --_000_95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D9690Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Stewart, Thanks for the comments -- please see inline. On Nov 13, 2012, at 3:54 AM, Stewart Bryant (stbryant) > wrote: Hi Carlos, Not entirely, and I need to update my discuss. I think that the draft really needs a review by a couple of PWE3 RFC4447 ex= perts to make sure nothing got missed, and I see no evidence that anyone fr= om PWE3 did a detailed review. I am not sure what specific evidence you are looking for or expecting. You = are correct, this document did not get named non-co-author assigned reviewe= rs explicitly representing PWE3 -- but that was not understood as a require= ment, and the document was brought to PWE3 and the co-authors are also PWE3= ers. On the other hand, you can see from the IETF82 minutes that this was presen= ted at PWE3: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/slides/pwe3-4.pdf With the following minutes: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pwe3/minutes?item=3Dminutes82.html 10 min - IPv6 PW LSP Ping - Mach CHEN http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping Mach presented. Questions: No questions. Will take discussion to the list. Andy noted that the Chairs think that this is an important piece = of work for the WG. Please review the draft. Fills an existing hole in = PWE3. And the last paragraph signaled PWE3 awareness and review. Are you expectin= g appointed reviewers from PWE3? However, there is a point that only came to mind as I thought about the dra= ft over night. In order to support IPv6 we will need to do a s/w update at = both PEs. Thus the WG should consider whether it wishes to continue to supp= ort both FEC 128 and 129, or whether this is an opportunity to retire FEC 1= 28. The only issue that I can think of with retiring 128 is if you have leg= acy 128 equipment behind a 6 to 4 translator, but I wonder how likely such = a scenario really is. That did not seem to be a consideration for 4447bis http://www.ietf.org/mai= l-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg13145.html Thanks, -- Carlos. Anyway I am concerned that this is a discussion that should have taken plac= e in PWE3 before the draft got this far. Stewart Sent from my iPad On 13 Nov 2012, at 01:32, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > wrote: Stewart, This document replaces an individual document that was initially presented = simultaneously to the MPLS and PWE3 WGs (circa IETF82 timeframe). At the ti= me (before this document was adopted as an MPLS WG item) we discussed with = the chairs from both WGs and decided to progress it in MPLS, mainly because= it was updating RFC 4379 and updating definitions created in the MPLS WG. The PWE3 working group has been reviewing this document from when it was an= individual contribution, all the way to IETF LC. Here's some pointers to t= hat effect: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12676.html // Sent to = both lists. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12677.html // PWE3 cha= ir commenting on it, both on the MPLS and PWE3 lists. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12808.html // Sent to = both lists. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg13332.html // All the = way to IETF LC in both lists. Does this address your concern? Thanks, -- Carlos. On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Stewart Bryant > wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. As far as I am able to determin, this document was not reviewed by the PWE3 WG, thus the main purpose of this discuss is to make sure that this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. --_000_95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D9690Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <094762585A95894497DE426FF618DB83@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Stewart,

Thanks for the comments -- please see inline.

On Nov 13, 2012, at 3:54 AM, Stewart Bryant (stbryant) <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

Not entirely, and I need to update my discuss.

I think that the draft really needs a review by a couple of PWE3 RFC4447 ex= perts to make sure nothing got missed, and I see no evidence that anyone fr= om PWE3 did a detailed review.

I am not sure what specific evidence you are looking for or expecting.= You are correct, this document did not get named non-co-author assigned re= viewers explicitly representing PWE3 -- but that was not understood as a re= quirement, and the document was brought to PWE3 and the co-authors are also PWE3ers.

On the other hand, you can see from the IETF82 minutes that this was p= resented at PWE3:

http://t= ools.ietf.org/agenda/82/slides/pwe3-4.pdf

With the following minutes:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pwe3/minutes?item=3Dminutes82.html

          10 min - IPv6 =
PW LSP Ping - Mach CHEN
          http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping
         =20
          Mach presented.
         =20
          Questions:
          No questions.  Will take discussion to the list.
         =20
          Andy noted that the Chairs think that this is an important piece =
of work
          for the WG.  Please review the draft.  Fills an existing hole in =
PWE3.

And the last paragraph signaled PWE3 awareness and review. Are yo= u expecting appointed reviewers from PWE3?

However, there is a point that only came to mind = as I thought about the draft over night. In order to support IPv6 we will n= eed to do a s/w update at both PEs. Thus the WG should consider whether it = wishes to continue to support both FEC 128 and 129, or whether this is an opportunity to retire FEC 128. The = only issue that I can think of with retiring 128 is if you have legacy 128 = equipment behind a 6 to 4 translator, but I wonder how likely such a scenar= io really is.

That did not seem to be a consideration for 4447bis http://www.i= etf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg13145.html

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

Anyway I am concerned that this is a discussion that should have taken plac= e in PWE3 before the draft got this far.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Nov 2012, at 01:32, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:

Stewart,

This document replaces an individual document that was initially presented = simultaneously to the MPLS and PWE3 WGs (circa IETF82 timeframe). At the ti= me (before this document was adopted as an MPLS WG item) we discussed with = the chairs from both WGs and decided to progress it in MPLS, mainly because it was updating RFC 4379 and updati= ng definitions created in the MPLS WG.

The PWE3 working group has been reviewing this document from when it was an= individual contribution, all the way to IETF LC. Here's some pointers to t= hat effect:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12676.html // Sen= t to both lists.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12677.html // PWE= 3 chair commenting on it, both on the MPLS and PWE3 lists.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg12808.html // Sen= t to both lists.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg13332.html // All= the way to IETF LC in both lists.

Does this address your concern?

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:

-------------------------------------------------= ---------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not
taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their
document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related
documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on
with their doc set but it would be useful if it could.

As far as I am able to determin, this document was not reviewed by the
PWE3 WG, thus the main purpose of this discuss is to make sure that this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise.

--_000_95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED320D9690Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Tue Nov 13 23:03:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A052921F86AA; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:03:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.891 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWFjMNQ03dXS; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE3A21F86AD; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id DEA8812983BD; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:04:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAE72lLO015607; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:02:47 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: stbryant@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:02:32 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-14 15:02:33, Serialize complete at 2012-11-14 15:02:33 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0026B48D48257AB6_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn qAE72lLO015607 Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:03:05 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0026B48D48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi, I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32-bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And we will not define 128-bit LDP router-id in IPv6 networks (at least currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that works, then it is not necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping. Thanks Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 > From: "Stewart Bryant" > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, > mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) > Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related > documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on > with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. > > As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed > by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. > > My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in > this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be > removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in > the PWE3 WG. > > > > > > --=_alternative 0026B48D48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi,
I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32-bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And we will not define 128-bit LDP router-id in IPv6 networks (at least currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that works, then it is not necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping.

Thanks
Lizhong

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800
> From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com>
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org,
> mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS)
> Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not
> taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their
> document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related
> documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on
> with their doc set but it would be useful if it could.
>
> As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed
> by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that
> this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise.
>
> My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in
> this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to
> retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be
> removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in
> the PWE3 WG.
>
>
>
>
>
> --=_alternative 0026B48D48257AB6_=-- From mach.chen@huawei.com Tue Nov 13 23:21:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A4721F85CF; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:21:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.03 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHMVfiUxsTIE; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC3D21F85C8; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:21:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMU05660; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:21:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:21:12 +0000 Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:21:22 +0000 Received: from SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.192]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:21:16 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Lizhong Jin , "stbryant@cisco.com" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHNwjYg9atyajR3AEK6gD7CJYwkEpfo6X3w Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:21:15 +0000 Message-ID: References:

In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.103] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CAED669SZXEML511MBXchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [PWE3] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFN0ZXdhcnQgQnJ5YW50J3MgRGlzY3VzcyBv?= =?gb2312?b?biBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtaXB2Ni1wdy1sc3AtcGluZy0wMzogKHdpdGgg?= =?gb2312?b?RElTQ1VTUyk=?= X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:21:28 -0000 --_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CAED669SZXEML511MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgTGl6aG9uZywNCg0KQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIFNlY3Rpb24gMy4yLjkgKHRoZSB0aGlyZCBwYXJh KSBvZiBSRkM0Mzc5Og0KDQqhsKGtVGhlIHZhbHVlIGZpZWxkIGNvbnNpc3RzIG9mIHRoZSBzZW5k ZXIncyBQRSBhZGRyZXNzICh0aGUgc291cmNlIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIHRhcmdldGVkIExEUCBz ZXNzaW9uKSwgdGhlIHJlbW90ZSBQRSBhZGRyZXNzICh0aGUgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gYWRkcmVzcyBv ZiB0aGUgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgTERQIHNlc3Npb24poa2hsQ0KDQpJdCBleHBsaWNpdGx5IHN0YXRlcyB0 aGF0IHRoZSBQRSBhZGRyZXNzZXMgYXJlIHRoZSBzb3VyY2UgYW5kIGRlc3RpbmF0aW9uIGFkZHJl c3NlcyBvZiB0aGUgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgTERQIHNlc3Npb24sIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vdCBhbnkgcmVsYXRp b25zaGlwIHRvIHRoZSByb3V0ZXItaWQuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCk1hY2gNCg0KDQq3orz+ yMs6IHB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10g tPqx7SBMaXpob25nIEppbg0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTLE6jEx1MIxNMjVIDE1OjAzDQrK1bz+yMs6 IHN0YnJ5YW50QGNpc2NvLmNvbQ0Ks63LzTogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlwdjYtcHctbHNwLXBp bmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc7IG1wbHMtY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnOyBwd2UzQGlldGYu b3JnOyBpZXNnQGlldGYub3JnOyBwd2UzLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZw0K1vfM4jogUmU6 IFtQV0UzXSBTdGV3YXJ0IEJyeWFudCdzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlwdjYt cHctbHNwLXBpbmctMDM6ICh3aXRoIERJU0NVU1MpDQoNCg0KSGksDQpJIGhhdmUgYSBxdWVzdGlv biB0byB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBub3Qgb2JqZWN0aW9uLiBUaGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCByZW1vdGUgUEUg YWRkcmVzcyBpbiBQVyB0YXJnZXQgRkVDIHN0YWNrIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDNDM3OSBpcyAzMi1i aXQgbG9uZy4gSSB3b25kZXIgaWYgd2UgY291bGQgaW50ZXJwcmV0IHRoaXMgMzItYml0IGFkZHJl c3MgYXMgdGhlIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgTERQIHJvdXRlci1pZCB3aGljaCBpcyBhbHNvIDMyYml0 IGxvbmcgaW4gTERQdjY/IEFuZCB3ZSB3aWxsIG5vdCBkZWZpbmUgMTI4LWJpdCBMRFAgcm91dGVy LWlkIGluIElQdjYgbmV0d29ya3MgKGF0IGxlYXN0IGN1cnJlbnRseSBub3QgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBN UExTIFdHKS4gSWYgdGhhdCB3b3JrcywgdGhlbiBpdCBpcyBub3QgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRvIGRlZmlu ZSBJUHY2ICJGRUMgMTI4LzEyOSIgUHNldWRvd2lyZSBmb3IgTFNQIHBpbmcuDQoNClRoYW5rcw0K TGl6aG9uZw0KDQoNCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+IE1lc3Nh Z2U6IDMNCj4gRGF0ZTogVHVlLCAxMyBOb3YgMjAxMiAwMToxNjo1NyAtMDgwMA0KPiBGcm9tOiAi U3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQiIDxzdGJyeWFudEBjaXNjby5jb20+DQo+IFRvOiBUaGUgSUVTRyA8aWVz Z0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4gQ2M6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2LXB3LWxzcC1waW5nQHRvb2xz LmlldGYub3JnLA0KPiAgICBtcGxzLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZywgICBwd2UzQGlldGYu b3JnLCBwd2UzLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbUFdFM10gU3Rld2Fy dCBCcnlhbnQncyBEaXNjdXNzIG9uDQo+ICAgIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2LXB3LWxzcC1w aW5nLTAzOiAgICh3aXRoIERJU0NVU1MpDQo+IE1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwyMDEyMTExMzA5MTY1Ny4x ODYzLjQxOTAyLmlkdHJhY2tlckBpZXRmYS5hbXNsLmNvbT4NCj4gQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1dGYtOCINCj4NCj4gU3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQgaGFzIGVudGVyZWQg dGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2 LXB3LWxzcC1waW5nLTAzOiBEaXNjdXNzDQo+DQo+IFdoZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtl ZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFsbA0KPiBlbWFpbCBhZGRy ZXNzZXMgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhlIFRvIGFuZCBDQyBsaW5lcy4gKEZlZWwgZnJlZSB0byBjdXQg dGhpcw0KPiBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkgcGFyYWdyYXBoLCBob3dldmVyLikNCj4NCj4NCj4gUGxlYXNl IHJlZmVyIHRvIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWVzZy9zdGF0ZW1lbnQvZGlzY3Vzcy1jcml0 ZXJpYS5odG1sDQo+IGZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IElFU0cgRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQg Q09NTUVOVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gRElTQ1VT UzoNCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPg0KPiBUaGlzIGlzIGEgcHNldWRvd2lyZSBkb2N1bWVudCBh bmQgaXQgaXMgYSBncmVhdCBwaXR5IHRoYXQgaXQgd2FzIG5vdA0KPiB0YWtlbiB0aHJvdWdoIHRo ZSBwc2V1ZG93aXJlIFdHIHNvIHRoYXQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgbGlzdGVkIGluIHRoZWlyDQo+IGRv Y3VtZW50IHNldCBhbmQgdGh1cyBiZSBtb3JlIHZpc2libGUgdG8gcmVhZGVycyBsb29raW5nIGZv ciBQVyByZWxhdGVkDQo+IGRvY3VtZW50cy4gSSBhbSBub3Qgc3VyZSB3aGV0aGVyIGl0IGlzIHBv c3NpYmxlIHRvIGdldCB0aGlzIHRvIHNob3cgb24NCj4gd2l0aCB0aGVpciBkb2Mgc2V0IGJ1dCBp dCB3b3VsZCBiZSB1c2VmdWwgaWYgaXQgY291bGQuDQo+DQo+IEFzIGZhciBhcyBJIGFtIGFibGUg dG8gZGV0ZXJtaW4sIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2FzIG5vdCBmb3JtYWxseSByZXZpZXdlZA0KPiBi eSB0aGUgUFdFMyBXRywgb25lIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgdGhpcyBkaXNjdXNzIGlzIHRodXMgdG8gbWFr ZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQNCj4gdGhpcyBoYXMgYmVlbiBhZGVxdWF0ZWx5IHJldmlld2VkIGJ5IHBlb3Bs ZSB3aXRoIFBXIGV4cGVydGlzZS4NCj4NCj4gTXkgc2Vjb25kIGNvbmNlcm4gaXMgd2hldGhlciBG RUMxMjggZGF0YSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBkZWZpbmVkIGluDQo+IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQs IG9yIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdXNlZCBhcyBhbiBvcHBvcnR1bml0eSB0 bw0KPiByZXRpcmUgRkVDMTI4LCBpbiB3aGljaCBjYXNlIHRoZSBGRUMgMTI4IElQdjYgZGVmaW5p dGlvbiBzaG91bGQgYmUNCj4gcmVtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIGRpc2N1 c3Npb24gdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgdGFrZSBwbGFjZSBpbg0KPiB0aGUgUFdFMyBXRy4NCj4NCj4NCj4N Cj4NCj4NCj4NCg== --_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CAED669SZXEML511MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Lizhong,

According to Section 3.2.9 (the third para) of RFC4379:

=A1=B0=A1=ADThe value field consists o= f the sender's PE address (the source address of the targeted LDP session),= the remote PE address (the destination address of the targeted LDP session)=A1=AD=A1= =B1

It explicitly states that the PE addre= sses are the source and destination addresses of the targeted LDP session, there is not any relationship to the router-id. <= /p>

Best regards,=

Mach

=B7=A2=BC= =FE=C8=CB: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Lizhong Jin
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1= =BC=E4: 2012<= span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:=CB=CE=CC=E5">=C4=EA11=D4=C214=C8=D5 15:03
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: stbryant@cisco.com
=B3=AD=CB=CD: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@= tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; p= we3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discu= ss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS)=

Hi,=
I have a q= uestion to this draft, not objection. The sender and remote PE address in P= W target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32-bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the corresponding LDP router-= id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And we will not define 128-bit LDP ro= uter-id in IPv6 networks (at least currently not defined in MPLS WG). If th= at works, then it is not necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping.

Thanks
Lizhong

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800
> From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com>
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org,
> mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-ch= airs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS= )
> Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>
> Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all<= br> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thi= s
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.ht= ml
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
> This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW relate= d
> documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on=
> with their doc set but it would be useful if it could.
>
> As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally review= ed
> by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that<= br> > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise.
>
> My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined = in
> this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to<= br> > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be
> removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in=
> the PWE3 WG.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CAED669SZXEML511MBXchi_-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Wed Nov 14 00:14:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E0D21F86B8 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:14:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.975, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pAmRhK-iIqBP for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:14:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A365321F86AD for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 7927217882 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:14:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 339447300B3; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:12:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAE8E9WZ011104; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:14:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: ssalam@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:13:59 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-14 16:13:54, Serialize complete at 2012-11-14 16:13:54 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002D3F2948257AB6_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn qAE8E9WZ011104 Cc: yaakov_s@rad.com, draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, stbryant@cisco.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:14:33 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002D3F2948257AB6_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Samer, Could you provide more technical detail about the one without IPR? I must miss something in this discussion. Thanks Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:42:55 +0000 > From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" > To: Yaakov Stein , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" > , "'Andrew G. Malis'" > , "pwe3@ietf.org" , > "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" > > Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" > Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > Message-ID: > <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi, > > To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described procedure > were identified in the course of the discussions, one without the > IPR and one with. The current draft only captures the latter because > it offers better reversion time characteristics (note that failover > protection time is comparable for both, it is primarily the > reversion time upon recovery that is different). With the approval > of the other co-authors, we would be happy to: > > 1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR > 2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted > > Regards, > Samer > > From: Yaakov Stein > > Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM > To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" mailto:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>>, "pwe3@ietf.org >" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3- > iccp@tools.ietf.org" > iccp@tools.ietf.org>> > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" >> > Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > Resent-From: > > Resent-To: >, > >, matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp >>, > > Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM > > Adrian, > > I support removal of the procedure. > > Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential" for an > implementation to be compliant with an RFC. > > Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in the RFC it > is part of the IETF's definition > of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement that > option the IPR becomes essential. > This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a > described procedure. > > I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the procedure as well, > as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if granted) > being ruled unenforceable. > > Y(J)S > > > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto: > pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00 > To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org pwe3@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org> > Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)' > Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > > Hi, > > Samer said: > > > the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an > optional procedure for a specific error scenario. > > That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider another > way of handling this specific error scenario, or even simply to > remove the optional procedure. > > What do people think? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto: > pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam) > Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50 > To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft- > ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org > Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) > Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > > Hi Andy, > > First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an > oversight on our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, > we wish to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re- > examining the evolution of the document, the procedures related to > the IPR were added to the draft in a later version ( draft-ietf- > pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of the initial draft, > and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR > disclosure earlier, and it only came to our attention when we were > updating version ?09 of the draft, since the patent was allowed in > that same timeframe. > > That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not > mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific > error scenario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different > from any other filed by Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. > > Regards, > Samer > > From: "Andrew G. Malis" malis@verizon.com>> > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM > To: "pwe3@ietf.org" >>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org iccp@tools.ietf.org>" draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>> > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" >> > Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft- > ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > > To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp: > > PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This > leads to two important questions: > > 1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original > draft-martini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost > simultaneously with the publication of the original -00 version of > the draft. This leads to the difficult question of why this IPR > wasn't disclosed until now, more than four years after the initial > filing and almost three years from the public publication of the > filing. The chairs would like the authors to respond to the > lateness of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF's > IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well, > and elsewhere as well. > > 2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has > an opinion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft > given the disclosure of the IPR and the license terms that have beenpublished. > > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: IETF Secretariat > > Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM > Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com< > mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>, ssalam@cisco.com >, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp softbank.co.jp> > Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com< > mailto:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, ipr-announce@ietf.org ipr-announce@ietf.org>, stbryant@cisco.com > > Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima: > > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled > "Inter-Chassis > Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was > submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted > on the "IETF > Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is > "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.""); > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20121031/fc925f33/attachment.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 102, Issue 16 > ************************************* --=_alternative 002D3F2948257AB6_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Samer,
Could you provide more technical detail about the one without IPR? I must miss something in this discussion.

Thanks
Lizhong

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:42:55 +0000
> From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>
> To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk"
> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Andrew G. Malis'"
> <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>,
> "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org"
> <draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
> Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
> Message-ID:
> <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi,
>
> To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described procedure
> were identified in the course of the discussions, one without the
> IPR and one with. The current draft only captures the latter because
> it offers better reversion time characteristics (note that failover
> protection time is comparable for both, it is primarily the
> reversion time upon recovery that is different). With the approval
> of the other co-authors, we would be happy to:
>
> 1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR
> 2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted
>
> Regards,
> Samer
>
> From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com<mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM
> To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>" <adrian@olddog.co.uk<
> mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com<
> mailto:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>>, "pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org
> >" <pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-
> iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>"
> <draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pwe3-
> iccp@tools.ietf.org>>
> Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com<mailto:stbryant@cisco.com
> >>
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
> Resent-From: <yaakov_s@rad.com<mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com>>
> Resent-To: <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>>,
> <sajassi@cisco.com<mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>>, <satoru.
> matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp<mailto:satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
> >>, <ssalam@cisco.com<mailto:ssalam@cisco.com>>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM
>
> Adrian,
>
> I support removal of the procedure.
>
> Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential" for an
> implementation to be compliant with an RFC.
>
> Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in the RFC it
> is part of the IETF's definition
> of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement that
> option the IPR becomes essential.
> This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a
> described procedure.
>
> I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the procedure as well,
> as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if granted)
> being ruled unenforceable.
>
> Y(J)S
>
>
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:
> pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00
> To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:
> pwe3@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-
> ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
> Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
>
> Hi,
>
> Samer said:
>
> > the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an
> optional procedure for a specific error scenario.
>
> That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider another
> way of handling this specific error scenario, or even simply to
> remove the optional procedure.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:
> pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
> Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50
> To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>; draft-
> ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
> Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an
> oversight on our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness,
> we wish to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re-
> examining the evolution of the document, the procedures related to
> the IPR were added to the draft in a later version ( draft-ietf-
> pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of the initial draft,
> and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR
> disclosure earlier, and it only came to our attention when we were
> updating version ?09 of the draft, since the patent was allowed in
> that same timeframe.
>
> That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not
> mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific
> error scenario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different
> from any other filed by Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'.
>
> Regards,
> Samer
>
> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com<mailto:andrew.g.
> malis@verizon.com>>
> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM
> To: "pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>" <pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org
> >>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pwe3-
> iccp@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org<mailto:
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>>
> Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com<mailto:stbryant@cisco.com
> >>
> Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-
> ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
>
> To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp:
>
> PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This
> leads to two important questions:
>
> 1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original
> draft-martini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost
> simultaneously with the publication of the original -00 version of
> the draft. This leads to the difficult question of why this IPR
> wasn't disclosed until now, more than four years after the initial
> filing and almost three years from the public publication of the
> filing. The chairs would like the authors to respond to the
> lateness of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF's
> IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well,
> and elsewhere as well.
>
> 2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has
> an opinion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft
> given the disclosure of the IPR and the license terms that have beenpublished.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy and Matthew
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-ipr@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org>>
> Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
> Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
> To: sajassi@cisco.com<mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>, lmartini@cisco.com<
> mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>, ssalam@cisco.com<mailto:ssalam@cisco.com
> >, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp<mailto:satoru.matsushima@tm.
> softbank.co.jp>
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com<
> mailto:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, ipr-announce@ietf.org<mailto:
> ipr-announce@ietf.org>, stbryant@cisco.com<mailto:stbryant@cisco.com>
>
> Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:
>
> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled
> "Inter-Chassis
> Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was
> submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted
> on the "IETF
> Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."");
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20121031/fc925f33/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>
> End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 102, Issue 16
> *************************************
--=_alternative 002D3F2948257AB6_=-- From rajiva@cisco.com Wed Nov 14 04:43:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BD121F8986; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:43:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yJoBqKSs6Xiq; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:43:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA9521F86CE; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:43:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7981; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352897009; x=1354106609; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=fJpo3NzIGXntuwdmhnl+SqPvEVPxjXTf7PNVfWfg9cs=; b=daQVc4U8BUlLXOqTFPviQgvdyjjBU0jaLWfOPCXdnBwPDVQAxE726Dc0 6uLptgAg29CshjEbs5ivTUXmv3k/CAWgRiXHf+t5EvJ2xFq/+Tx9zZpNW RAg6IpuiJdugAbaR23btBu1hi7S+SNZAH3eL1xBKaLP+GV/Q+83VEWfnF I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEaRo1CtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEwz2BCIIeAQEBAwESAVgOBQsCAQgRAwECKAcyFAkIAgQOBQkZh2IGC5pyoBCMLYVLYQOLSYozhlmHf4Frgm+BZBc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6895"; a="142243502" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2012 12:43:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAEChRhN019602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:43:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.76]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:43:27 -0600 From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: Lizhong Jin Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHNwjYfS6D4BwsxSEC4/b2N3v504JfpRtu6 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:43:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19364.000 x-tm-as-result: No--43.400500-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C704A4B068B546D6BDFE19C1028CFD83ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:43:33 -0000 --_000_C704A4B068B546D6BDFE19C1028CFD83ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lizhong, FEC stack must encode an IP address (for which the LSP is constructed). Cheers, Rajiv Sent from my Phone On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:03 AM, "Lizhong Jin" > wrote: Hi, I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and remote PE ad= dress in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32-bit long. I wonder if= we could interpret this 32-bit address as the corresponding LDP router-id = which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And we will not define 128-bit LDP route= r-id in IPv6 networks (at least currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that = works, then it is not necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for= LSP ping. Thanks Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 > From: "Stewart Bryant" > > To: The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, > mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@= ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) > Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" > > Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related > documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on > with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. > > As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed > by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. > > My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in > this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be > removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in > the PWE3 WG. > > > > > > --_000_C704A4B068B546D6BDFE19C1028CFD83ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Lizhong,

FEC stack must encode an IP address (for which the LSP is constructed).

Cheers,

Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:03 AM, "Lizhong Jin" <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> wrote:

Hi,
I have a question to this draft, not o= bjection. The sender and remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined i= n RFC4379 is 32-bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit addres= s as the corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And we will not define 128-bit LDP rout= er-id in IPv6 networks (at least currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that= works, then it is not necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pse= udowire for LSP ping.

Thanks
Lizhong

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800
> From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com>
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>= ;
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org,
> mpls-chairs= @tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS= )
> Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"
>
> Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all<= br> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thi= s
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
> This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW relate= d
> documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on=
> with their doc set but it would be useful if it could.
>
> As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally review= ed
> by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that<= br> > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise.
>
> My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined = in
> this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to<= br> > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be
> removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in=
> the PWE3 WG.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--_000_C704A4B068B546D6BDFE19C1028CFD83ciscocom_-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Wed Nov 14 06:43:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7411421F8521; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:43:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.536, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9Ljy7EnSxRe; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1286D21F8518; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 23066129F08D; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:44:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 86246733B80; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:41:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAEEhGKP017476; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:43:16 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: Mach Chen MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:43:06 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-14 22:43:04, Serialize complete at 2012-11-14 22:43:04 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0050DFFE48257AB6_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn qAEEhGKP017476 Cc: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "stbryant@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:43:32 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0050DFFE48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgTWFjaCwNCkkgbWVhbiwgaWYgaXQgdGVjaG5pY2FsbHkgd29ya3MsIHdlIGNvdWxkIGp1c3Qg c2ltcGx5IHJlZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBuYW1lIG9mIA0KUEUgYWRkcmVzcyBpbiBSRkM0Mzc5Lg0KDQpS ZWdhcmRzDQpMaXpob25nDQogDQoNCk1hY2ggQ2hlbiA8bWFjaC5jaGVuQGh1YXdlaS5jb20+IHdy b3RlIDIwMTIvMTEvMTQgMTU6MjE6MTU6DQoNCj4gSGkgTGl6aG9uZywNCj4gDQo+IEFjY29yZGlu ZyB0byBTZWN0aW9uIDMuMi45ICh0aGUgdGhpcmQgcGFyYSkgb2YgUkZDNDM3OToNCj4gDQo+IKGw oa1UaGUgdmFsdWUgZmllbGQgY29uc2lzdHMgb2YgdGhlIHNlbmRlcidzIFBFIGFkZHJlc3MgKHRo ZSBzb3VyY2UgDQo+IGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIHRhcmdldGVkIExEUCBzZXNzaW9uKSwgdGhlIHJl bW90ZSBQRSBhZGRyZXNzICh0aGUgDQo+IGRlc3RpbmF0aW9uIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIHRhcmdl dGVkIExEUCBzZXNzaW9uKaGtobENCj4gDQo+IEl0IGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgc3RhdGVzIHRoYXQgdGhl IFBFIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhcmUgdGhlIHNvdXJjZSBhbmQgDQo+IGRlc3RpbmF0aW9uIGFkZHJlc3Nl cyBvZiB0aGUgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgTERQIHNlc3Npb24sIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vdCBhbnkgDQo+IHJlbGF0 aW9uc2hpcCB0byB0aGUgcm91dGVyLWlkLiANCj4gDQo+IEJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCj4gTWFjaA0K PiANCj4gDQo+IHB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRm Lm9yZ10gb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIA0KTGl6aG9uZyBKaW4NCj4gZGF0ZTogMjAxMsTqMTHUwjE0yNUg MTU6MDMNCj4gdG86IHN0YnJ5YW50QGNpc2NvLmNvbQ0KPiBjYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlw djYtcHctbHNwLXBpbmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc7IG1wbHMtDQo+IGNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZzsgcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgaWVzZ0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcHdlMy0NCj4gY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xz LmlldGYub3JnDQo+IHN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUFdFM10gU3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQncyBEaXNjdXNz IG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2LQ0KPiBwdy1sc3AtcGluZy0wMzogKHdpdGggRElTQ1VT UykNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBIaSwgDQo+IEkgaGF2ZSBhIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRvIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQsIG5v dCBvYmplY3Rpb24uIFRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYW5kIA0KPiByZW1vdGUgUEUgYWRkcmVzcyBpbiBQVyB0 YXJnZXQgRkVDIHN0YWNrIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDNDM3OSBpcyAzMi0NCj4gYml0IGxvbmcuIEkg d29uZGVyIGlmIHdlIGNvdWxkIGludGVycHJldCB0aGlzIDMyLWJpdCBhZGRyZXNzIGFzIHRoZSAN Cj4gY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBMRFAgcm91dGVyLWlkIHdoaWNoIGlzIGFsc28gMzJiaXQgbG9uZyBp biBMRFB2Nj8gQW5kIA0KPiB3ZSB3aWxsIG5vdCBkZWZpbmUgMTI4LWJpdCBMRFAgcm91dGVyLWlk IGluIElQdjYgbmV0d29ya3MgKGF0IGxlYXN0IA0KPiBjdXJyZW50bHkgbm90IGRlZmluZWQgaW4g TVBMUyBXRykuIElmIHRoYXQgd29ya3MsIHRoZW4gaXQgaXMgbm90IA0KPiBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8g ZGVmaW5lIElQdjYgIkZFQyAxMjgvMTI5IiBQc2V1ZG93aXJlIGZvciBMU1AgcGluZy4gDQo+IA0K PiBUaGFua3MgDQo+IExpemhvbmcgDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gPiANCj4gPiBNZXNzYWdlOiAzDQo+ID4gRGF0ZTogVHVlLCAxMyBOb3YgMjAx MiAwMToxNjo1NyAtMDgwMA0KPiA+IEZyb206ICJTdGV3YXJ0IEJyeWFudCIgPHN0YnJ5YW50QGNp c2NvLmNvbT4NCj4gPiBUbzogVGhlIElFU0cgPGllc2dAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQo+ID4gQ2M6IGRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2LXB3LWxzcC1waW5nQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLA0KPiA+ICAgIG1wbHMt Y2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLCAgIHB3ZTNAaWV0Zi5vcmcsIA0KcHdlMy1jaGFpcnNAdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbUFdFM10gU3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQncyBEaXNjdXNz IG9uDQo+ID4gICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlwdjYtcHctbHNwLXBpbmctMDM6ICAgKHdpdGgg RElTQ1VTUykNCj4gPiBNZXNzYWdlLUlEOiA8MjAxMjExMTMwOTE2NTcuMTg2My40MTkwMi5pZHRy YWNrZXJAaWV0ZmEuYW1zbC5jb20+DQo+ID4gQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFy c2V0PSJ1dGYtOCINCj4gPiANCj4gPiBTdGV3YXJ0IEJyeWFudCBoYXMgZW50ZXJlZCB0aGUgZm9s bG93aW5nIGJhbGxvdCBwb3NpdGlvbiBmb3INCj4gPiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtaXB2Ni1wdy1s c3AtcGluZy0wMzogRGlzY3Vzcw0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IFdoZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtl ZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFsbA0KPiA+IGVtYWlsIGFk ZHJlc3NlcyBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiB0aGUgVG8gYW5kIENDIGxpbmVzLiAoRmVlbCBmcmVlIHRvIGN1 dCANCnRoaXMNCj4gPiBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkgcGFyYWdyYXBoLCBob3dldmVyLikNCj4gPiANCj4g PiANCj4gPiBQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2llc2cvc3RhdGVt ZW50L2Rpc2N1c3MtY3JpdGVyaWEuaHRtbA0KPiA+IGZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0 IElFU0cgRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gDQo+ ID4gDQo+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiA+IERJU0NVU1M6DQo+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0K PiA+IA0KPiA+IFRoaXMgaXMgYSBwc2V1ZG93aXJlIGRvY3VtZW50IGFuZCBpdCBpcyBhIGdyZWF0 IHBpdHkgdGhhdCBpdCB3YXMgbm90DQo+ID4gdGFrZW4gdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgcHNldWRvd2lyZSBX RyBzbyB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGxpc3RlZCBpbiB0aGVpcg0KPiA+IGRvY3VtZW50IHNldCBh bmQgdGh1cyBiZSBtb3JlIHZpc2libGUgdG8gcmVhZGVycyBsb29raW5nIGZvciBQVyANCnJlbGF0 ZWQNCj4gPiBkb2N1bWVudHMuIEkgYW0gbm90IHN1cmUgd2hldGhlciBpdCBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSB0 byBnZXQgdGhpcyB0byBzaG93IG9uDQo+ID4gd2l0aCB0aGVpciBkb2Mgc2V0IGJ1dCBpdCB3b3Vs ZCBiZSB1c2VmdWwgaWYgaXQgY291bGQuDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gQXMgZmFyIGFzIEkgYW0gYWJsZSB0 byBkZXRlcm1pbiwgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCB3YXMgbm90IGZvcm1hbGx5IA0KcmV2aWV3ZWQNCj4g PiBieSB0aGUgUFdFMyBXRywgb25lIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgdGhpcyBkaXNjdXNzIGlzIHRodXMgdG8g bWFrZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQNCj4gPiB0aGlzIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFkZXF1YXRlbHkgcmV2aWV3ZWQgYnkg cGVvcGxlIHdpdGggUFcgZXhwZXJ0aXNlLg0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IE15IHNlY29uZCBjb25jZXJuIGlz IHdoZXRoZXIgRkVDMTI4IGRhdGEgc3RydWN0dXJlcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGVmaW5lZCANCmluDQo+ ID4gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgb3Igd2hldGhlciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IHNob3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkIGFzIGFu IG9wcG9ydHVuaXR5IHRvDQo+ID4gcmV0aXJlIEZFQzEyOCwgaW4gd2hpY2ggY2FzZSB0aGUgRkVD IDEyOCBJUHY2IGRlZmluaXRpb24gc2hvdWxkIGJlDQo+ID4gcmVtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBkcmFm dC4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgdGFrZSBwbGFjZSBpbg0KPiA+IHRo ZSBQV0UzIFdHLg0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0K --=_alternative 0050DFFE48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkhpIE1hY2gsPC9mb250Pg0KPGJy Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JIG1lYW4sIGlmIGl0IHRlY2huaWNhbGx5 IHdvcmtzLCB3ZQ0KY291bGQganVzdCBzaW1wbHkgcmVkZWZpbmUgdGhlIG5hbWUgb2YgUEUgYWRk cmVzcyBpbiBSRkM0Mzc5LjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fu cy1zZXJpZiI+UmVnYXJkczwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI+TGl6aG9uZzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jm5i c3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5NYWNo IENoZW4gJmx0O21hY2guY2hlbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tJmd0Ow0Kd3JvdGUgMjAxMi8xMS8xNCAxNToy MToxNTo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IEhpIExpemhvbmcsPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4mZ3Q7ICZuYnNwOzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIg ZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jmd0OyBBY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gU2VjdGlvbiAzLjIuOSAodGhlDQp0 aGlyZCBwYXJhKSBvZiBSRkM0Mzc5OjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fu cy1zZXJpZiI+Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMt c2VyaWYiPiZndDsgobChrVRoZSB2YWx1ZSBmaWVsZCBjb25zaXN0cw0Kb2YgdGhlIHNlbmRlcidz IFBFIGFkZHJlc3MgKHRoZSBzb3VyY2UgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBhZGRyZXNzIG9mIHRoZSB0YXJnZXRl ZCBMRFAgc2Vzc2lvbiksIHRoZSByZW1vdGUgUEUgYWRkcmVzcyAodGhlIDxicj4NCiZndDsgZGVz dGluYXRpb24gYWRkcmVzcyBvZiB0aGUgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgTERQIHNlc3Npb24poa2hsTwvZm9udD4N Cjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8 YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgSXQgZXhwbGljaXRseSBzdGF0 ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgUEUNCmFkZHJlc3NlcyBhcmUgdGhlIHNvdXJjZSBhbmQgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBk ZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBhZGRyZXNzZXMgb2YgdGhlIHRhcmdldGVkIExEUCBzZXNzaW9uLCB0aGVyZSBp cyBub3QgYW55DQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCB0byB0aGUgcm91dGVyLWlkLiA8L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgJm5ic3A7PC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4mZ3Q7IEJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcyw8 L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgTWFjaDwvZm9u dD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+ DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgJm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4mZ3Q7IHB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRm Lm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10NCm9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBMaXpob25n IEppbjxicj4NCiZndDsgZGF0ZTogMjAxMsTqMTHUwjE0yNUgMTU6MDM8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHRvOiBz dGJyeWFudEBjaXNjby5jb208YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGNjOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtaXB2Ni1wdy1s c3AtcGluZ0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzsgbXBscy08YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZzsgcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgaWVzZ0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcHdlMy08YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGNoYWly c0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCiZndDsgc3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQV0UzXSBTdGV3YXJ0IEJy eWFudCdzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlwdjYtPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBwdy1sc3At cGluZy0wMzogKHdpdGggRElTQ1VTUyk8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNh bnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgJm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIj4mZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgSGksIDxicj4NCiZndDsgSSBoYXZlIGEgcXVlc3Rpb24g dG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgbm90IG9iamVjdGlvbi4gVGhlIHNlbmRlciBhbmQgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBy ZW1vdGUgUEUgYWRkcmVzcyBpbiBQVyB0YXJnZXQgRkVDIHN0YWNrIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDNDM3 OSBpcyAzMi08YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGJpdCBsb25nLiBJIHdvbmRlciBpZiB3ZSBjb3VsZCBpbnRlcnBy ZXQgdGhpcyAzMi1iaXQgYWRkcmVzcyBhcyB0aGUNCjxicj4NCiZndDsgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBM RFAgcm91dGVyLWlkIHdoaWNoIGlzIGFsc28gMzJiaXQgbG9uZyBpbiBMRFB2Nj8gQW5kDQo8YnI+ DQomZ3Q7IHdlIHdpbGwgbm90IGRlZmluZSAxMjgtYml0IExEUCByb3V0ZXItaWQgaW4gSVB2NiBu ZXR3b3JrcyAoYXQgbGVhc3QNCjxicj4NCiZndDsgY3VycmVudGx5IG5vdCBkZWZpbmVkIGluIE1Q TFMgV0cpLiBJZiB0aGF0IHdvcmtzLCB0aGVuIGl0IGlzIG5vdCA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IG5lY2Vzc2Fy eSB0byBkZWZpbmUgSVB2NiAmcXVvdDtGRUMgMTI4LzEyOSZxdW90OyBQc2V1ZG93aXJlIGZvciBM U1ANCnBpbmcuIDxicj4NCiZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBUaGFua3MgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBMaXpob25n IDxicj4NCiZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBNZXNzYWdlOiAzPGJy Pg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IERhdGU6IFR1ZSwgMTMgTm92IDIwMTIgMDE6MTY6NTcgLTA4MDA8YnI+DQom Z3Q7ICZndDsgRnJvbTogJnF1b3Q7U3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQmcXVvdDsgJmx0O3N0YnJ5YW50QGNp c2NvLmNvbSZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgVG86IFRoZSBJRVNHICZsdDtpZXNnQGlldGYub3Jn Jmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBDYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLWlwdjYtcHctbHNwLXBpbmdA dG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcsPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDttcGxzLWNoYWlyc0B0 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZywgJm5ic3A7IHB3ZTNAaWV0Zi5vcmcsDQpwd2UzLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5p ZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBTdWJqZWN0OiBbUFdFM10gU3Rld2FydCBCcnlhbnQncyBE aXNjdXNzIG9uPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtaXB2 Ni1wdy1sc3AtcGluZy0wMzogJm5ic3A7ICh3aXRoDQpESVNDVVNTKTxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBN ZXNzYWdlLUlEOiAmbHQ7MjAxMjExMTMwOTE2NTcuMTg2My40MTkwMi5pZHRyYWNrZXJAaWV0ZmEu YW1zbC5jb20mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IENvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogdGV4dC9wbGFpbjsgY2hh cnNldD0mcXVvdDt1dGYtOCZxdW90Ozxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgU3Rl d2FydCBCcnlhbnQgaGFzIGVudGVyZWQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9y PGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbXBscy1pcHY2LXB3LWxzcC1waW5nLTAzOiBEaXNj dXNzPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBXaGVuIHJlc3BvbmRpbmcsIHBsZWFz ZSBrZWVwIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IGxpbmUgaW50YWN0IGFuZCByZXBseQ0KdG8gYWxsPGJyPg0KJmd0 OyAmZ3Q7IGVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiB0aGUgVG8gYW5kIENDIGxpbmVzLiAo RmVlbCBmcmVlIHRvDQpjdXQgdGhpczxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkgcGFyYWdy YXBoLCBob3dldmVyLik8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsg Jmd0OyBQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZXNnL3N0YXRlbWVudC9k aXNjdXNzLWNyaXRlcmlhLmh0bWw8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgZm9yIG1vcmUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g YWJvdXQgSUVTRyBESVNDVVNTIGFuZCBDT01NRU5UIHBvc2l0aW9ucy48YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsg PGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0 OyAmZ3Q7IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS08YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgRElTQ1VTUzo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZn dDsgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLTxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgVGhpcyBpcyBh IHBzZXVkb3dpcmUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYW5kIGl0IGlzIGEgZ3JlYXQgcGl0eSB0aGF0IGl0DQp3YXMg bm90PGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IHRha2VuIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIHBzZXVkb3dpcmUgV0cgc28gdGhh dCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBsaXN0ZWQgaW4NCnRoZWlyPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IGRvY3VtZW50IHNl dCBhbmQgdGh1cyBiZSBtb3JlIHZpc2libGUgdG8gcmVhZGVycyBsb29raW5nIGZvcg0KUFcgcmVs YXRlZDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyBkb2N1bWVudHMuIEkgYW0gbm90IHN1cmUgd2hldGhlciBpdCBp cyBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byBnZXQgdGhpcyB0bw0Kc2hvdyBvbjxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyB3aXRoIHRo ZWlyIGRvYyBzZXQgYnV0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCBpZiBpdCBjb3VsZC48YnI+DQomZ3Q7 ICZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IEFzIGZhciBhcyBJIGFtIGFibGUgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW4sIHRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2FzIG5vdCBmb3JtYWxseQ0KcmV2aWV3ZWQ8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgYnkg dGhlIFBXRTMgV0csIG9uZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHRoaXMgZGlzY3VzcyBpcyB0aHVzIHRvIG1ha2Ug c3VyZQ0KdGhhdDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyB0aGlzIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFkZXF1YXRlbHkgcmV2aWV3 ZWQgYnkgcGVvcGxlIHdpdGggUFcgZXhwZXJ0aXNlLjxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7 ICZndDsgTXkgc2Vjb25kIGNvbmNlcm4gaXMgd2hldGhlciBGRUMxMjggZGF0YSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmVz IHNob3VsZCBiZQ0KZGVmaW5lZCBpbjxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBvciB3aGV0 aGVyIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHVzZWQgYXMgYW4gb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkNCnRvPGJyPg0K Jmd0OyAmZ3Q7IHJldGlyZSBGRUMxMjgsIGluIHdoaWNoIGNhc2UgdGhlIEZFQyAxMjggSVB2NiBk ZWZpbml0aW9uIHNob3VsZA0KYmU8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgcmVtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBkcmFm dC4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgdGFrZQ0KcGxhY2UgaW48YnI+DQom Z3Q7ICZndDsgdGhlIFBXRTMgV0cuPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+ DQomZ3Q7ICZndDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAmZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7ICZn dDsgPC9mb250Pg0K --=_alternative 0050DFFE48257AB6_=-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Wed Nov 14 06:46:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0845D21F855E; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:46:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iO-cAWiwZER7; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFBA21F8518; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 2F18018D0F; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:46:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id DB94A733C19; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:44:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAEEkSC3019290; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:46:28 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:46:18 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-14 22:46:15, Serialize complete at 2012-11-14 22:46:15 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00512AAA48257AB6_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn qAEEkSC3019290 Cc: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:46:44 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00512AAA48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Rajiv, Is there any technical reason why it must be an IP address? If it is a 32bit router-id, the PW ping in IPv6 network will still work, right? Maybe I missed something, and would appreciate if you could point out, or is there any PROS and CONS between the two options? Thanks Lizhong "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote 2012/11/14 20:43:26: > Hi Lizhong, > > FEC stack must encode an IP address (for which the LSP is constructed). > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > Sent from my Phone > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:03 AM, "Lizhong Jin" wrote: > Hi, > I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and > remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32- > bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the > corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And > we will not define 128-bit LDP router-id in IPv6 networks (at least > currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that works, then it is not > necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping. > > Thanks > Lizhong > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 > > From: "Stewart Bryant" > > To: The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org, > > mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on > > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) > > Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not > > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their > > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related > > documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on > > with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. > > > > As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed > > by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that > > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. > > > > My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in > > this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to > > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be > > removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in > > the PWE3 WG. > > > > > > > > > > > > --=_alternative 00512AAA48257AB6_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Rajiv,
Is there any technical reason why it must be an IP address? If it is a 32bit router-id, the PW ping in IPv6 network will still work, right? Maybe I missed something, and would appreciate if you could point out, or is there any PROS and CONS between the two options?

Thanks
Lizhong

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote 2012/11/14 20:43:26:

> Hi Lizhong,
>
> FEC stack must encode an IP address (for which the LSP is constructed).
>
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> Sent from my Phone
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:03 AM, "Lizhong Jin" <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and
> remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32-
> bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the
> corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And
> we will not define 128-bit LDP router-id in IPv6 networks (at least
> currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that works, then it is not
> necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping.
>
> Thanks
> Lizhong
>
>
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800
> > From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com>
> > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org,
> > mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS)
> > Message-ID: <20121113091657.1863.41902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not
> > taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their
> > document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related
> > documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on
> > with their doc set but it would be useful if it could.
> >
> > As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed
> > by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that
> > this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise.
> >
> > My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in
> > this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to
> > retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be
> > removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in
> > the PWE3 WG.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --=_alternative 00512AAA48257AB6_=-- From cpignata@cisco.com Wed Nov 14 13:21:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C85821F84C7; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:21:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id chsmk3TfywYa; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6936921F84BB; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:21:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11207; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352928106; x=1354137706; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=r/69Z4jnUM9jp+U6Tu0Q6egmQR2tfMnKtcOcHZCDf/0=; b=PSxj3xH2RrGau5t/vVCXZMq1ki0XSEpetKBp5ZAOZZalA3iJMiYBqnDe 2eMFYhLiuHU+Gty77mfaSa174JcA2Im+OYrao/CvbFnmeJvtdd47gB/9b 67WqozlbmWegTL00tZ7tvio0/3ha6hkaewIyuLpjK4Mh/WUxzZtFplUD9 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAkKpFCtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEw0KBCIIeAQEBAwEBAQEPAVgDCwULAgEIEQMBAigHJwsUCQgCBA4FCRmHYwYLmyKgEYwthUthA4tJijOGWYd/gWuCb4FkFw X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6896"; a="142499754" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2012 21:21:45 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAELLjwh022853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:21:45 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.217]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:21:44 -0600 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: Lizhong Jin Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHNwmWx55VyFN6VJEiK7ifbn//tzJfpzWUAgAAJ5jQ= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:21:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19364.000 x-tm-as-result: No--50.333300-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F50244961FBF4202A123777831FC9F14ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:21:52 -0000 --_000_F50244961FBF4202A123777831FC9F14ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lizhong, I'd be quite hesitant to redefine the semantics of the existing IPv4 sub-TL= V, and I'd favor not changing deployed fields and instead defining new ones= for v6. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On Nov 14, 2012, at 9:46 AM, "Lizhong Jin" > wrote: Hi Rajiv, Is there any technical reason why it must be an IP address? If it is a 32bi= t router-id, the PW ping in IPv6 network will still work, right? Maybe I mi= ssed something, and would appreciate if you could point out, or is there an= y PROS and CONS between the two options? Thanks Lizhong "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" > wrote 20= 12/11/14 20:43:26: > Hi Lizhong, > > FEC stack must encode an IP address (for which the LSP is constructed). > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > Sent from my Phone > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:03 AM, "Lizhong Jin" > wrote: > Hi, > I have a question to this draft, not objection. The sender and > remote PE address in PW target FEC stack defined in RFC4379 is 32- > bit long. I wonder if we could interpret this 32-bit address as the > corresponding LDP router-id which is also 32bit long in LDPv6? And > we will not define 128-bit LDP router-id in IPv6 networks (at least > currently not defined in MPLS WG). If that works, then it is not > necessary to define IPv6 "FEC 128/129" Pseudowire for LSP ping. > > Thanks > Lizhong > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:16:57 -0800 > > From: "Stewart Bryant" > > > To: The IESG