From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Jul 4 08:21:23 2013 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 A6F7F11E812E for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwzKOaKMUse6 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A466821F9FF3 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r64FL6kE006484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r64FL5aN019039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:21:06 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.5]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:21:05 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: Loa Andersson , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Thread-Index: AQHObdJP5AzHUQ6mLUqfg1Jqqe0oOplUp8SA Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:21:04 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51C32C19.6080606@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <3FEEB11C242A664387895F292725D3C7@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: "pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:21:23 -0000 Loa Thank you very much for your detailed review. Please see below for some responses to your comments. Best regards Matthew On 20/06/2013 17:21, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-16 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D > > >Authors/Editors I've reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-16.txt. >In general I think the docment is useful, well-written and about >ready to be publish as an RFC on the standards track. > >I reviewed version -16, but the now active document version -17 >contains no other changes than version number and dates. > >I've also set the word document I've been working on to the authors. > >My comments are both technical and related to the style on how RFCs >should be should be written, i.e. >http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style. > >Being this late in the wg process some of the are also a bit nitty >gritty, but if we want smooth ride through AD review, IESG review and >the the editing by the RFC Editor we'd better fix them now. > >Comments per section: > >Document header >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Comment - 1: >-------- >Since this document updates RFC6073 this needs to be spelled out in >the header (more details in the commens on the IANA section (section 10)). Agreed > >Titel: >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Current text: >Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires > >Comment -2: >-------- >There is a list kept by the RFC Editor of well-known RFC acrononyms >are expanded >http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt for >MS-PW it says Multi-Segment Pseudowire. Agreed. I will change it to 'Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires'. > >Section 1: >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Current text: >1. Major Co-authors > >Comment-3: >---------- >There is nothing to say about the content of this section, but the >the structure of this document is not according to the RFC style >guide. Is that motivated, or should it just be updated to meet what >is said in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style? I will rearrange the sections according to the guide. I think the existing arrangement is a result of this draft being around long before the current version of the style guide. > >Comment-4: >---------- >The RFC Style guide says: >"a) Introduction > The introduction section should always be the first section > following the Table of Contents (except in the case of MIBs). > While we recommend "Introduction" as the title for this section, > authors sometimes choose alternate titles such as "Overview" or > "Background"." > >Section 2: >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Current text: >2. Acknowledgements >Comment -5: >----------- >Again there is nothing to say about the content of the paragraph, but >again it breaks the structure required by the style guide. >"Acknowledgements" is normally placed just before the "Author=B9s >Address=B2 section and after an "Contributors" section. Agreed, I'll move it. > >Section 3: >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Current text: >3. Introduction >Comment - 6: >------------ >This section should be Section 1. OK > >Section 3.1. >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >First sentence of the first paragraph says: > "[RFC5023] describes the service provider requirements for > extending the reach of pseudowires across multiple PSN domains. > This is achieved using a Multi-segment Pseudowire (MS-PW)." >Comment- 7: >----------- >PSN is a well know abbreviation, but since it in the RFC-Editors >list of abbreviations are expanded two different ways and we here >is (my opinion) within the scope of reasonable doubts of which is >intended it should be expanded. Ok > >Second sentence of the first paragraph says: > "An MS-PW is defined as a set of two or more contiguous PW segments > that behave and function as a single point-to-point PW ." >Comment - 8: >I can=B9t find any active wg docs or RFCs on P2MP PWs, there is at >least one individual contribution on protection of P2MP =AD and >there have been other discussions. The way this is written it seems >that MS-PW=B9s are not for P2MP, if dynamic placement of P2MP PWs are >thought to be possible you should add =B3Dynamic placement of P2MP PWs >are for further study and out of scope for this document=B2. It is true that the MS-PW Architecture (RFC5659) only defines MS-Pws as P2P. There has been some work to define requirements and a framework for P2MP Pws, that includes MS-PW, but I think we always intended to extend the P2P drafts/rfcs for this, rather than to define P2MP in the base RFCs. I.e. There is no proper consideration of P2MP in the dynamic MS-PW draft. Therefore, I agree with adding your proposed statement. > >Section 3.3 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Bullet 3, 4 and 5 says: >" - Forward Direction: ST-PE to TT-PE. > - Reverse Direction: TT-PE to ST-PE > - Forwarding Direction : Direction of control plane, > signaling flow" > >Comment - 9: >---------- >Probably not that important, but since you want to distinguish >between =B2Forward Direction=B2 and =B2Forwarding Direction=B2 you not >making it easy by choosing terms that close. I have no better >suggestion just now. > >Comment - 10: >----------- >This indicates that there is no CP signal flow in the reverse >direction =AD What about talking about =B3Request direction=B2 (for what >is now=B2 Forwarding Direction=B2 and which is the direction the LDP >flow is initiated and =B3Response direction=B2 which is the direction >of the responses go? >On the other hand why bother =AD this is the only place =B3Forwarding >Direction" is used in the document. > I agree. I think we can probably remove this term. In fact, it is the direction of the label mapping flow for a given 'forward' or 'reverse' direction of the PW. It is not a label request, as such (since this is LDP-DU). > >Section 3.4 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Under the figure > >Current text: >Figure 1: PW switching Reference Model > >Comment - 11: >------------- >Proposed new text: >Figure 1: MS-PW switching Reference Model I think it should be 'MS-PW reference Model', as per RFC5659. > >First paragraph under the figure, first sentence. > >Current text: > >Figure 1 shows the architecture for a simple multi-segment case. > >Comment - 12: >This confuses me a bit, I thought a reference model gave all the >info you need. And I think this reference model does; it would be >equally true if if there were three PSNs concatenated. Or if the >S-PE1 put the PW segments 3 and 4 in one PSN each. A reference model >gives you the architectural constructs, it does not describe >separate cases. >Propose to change the text to =B3Figure 1 shows the reference model >for MS-PWs=B2. > Agreed. > >First paragraph under the figure, third sentence. > >Current text: >These PEs reside in different PSNs. > >Comment/Question - 13: >Is the =B2different PSNs=B2 really required couldn=B9t there be reasons >for a operator of a single PSN to use the MS-PW technology within >that PSN. Text seem to mandate =B3different PSNs=B2. There are examples where operators use MS-Pws and the segments of a given PW can be said to span the same PSN. So I do not think that separate PSNs should be mandated and there is nothing in the technology to restrict its use to interconnection of separate PSNs. However, RFC5659 does talk about PSN 1 and PSN 2 in the reference model. > >First paragraph under the figure, fourth sentence. > >Current text: > "A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 across PSN1, and a > second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2." > >Comment - 14: >------------- >Propose new text: >A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 across PSN1 (supporting >PW segment 1 and 2), and a second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 >to T-PE2 (supporting PW segment 3 and 4) cross PSN2. > OK > >First paragraph under the figure, last sentence. > >Current text: > >"...in case of an MPLS PSN to another MPLS PSN PW switching the >operation is a standard MPLS label switch operation." > >Comment - 15: >------------- >I think this should be =B2label swap operation=B2 according to 3031. Agreed. > >Section 4.1 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Current text: >"The following OPTIONAL TLVs are also defined:" > >Comment - 16: >------------- >Yes 2119 defines OPTIONAL as part of the 2119 language, but I don=B9t >think it is motivated here, this it just categorizing the TLV as >optional, not specifying behaviour. Suggest using lower case - >optional. OK > >Sectiom 5. >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >First paragraph - first sentence. > >Current text: > "Single segment pseudowires on an MPLS PSN can use attachment > circuit identifiers for a PW using FEC 129." > >Comment - 17: >------------- >I'm not clear on what this sentence says. >- I can read it as that attachment circuits are optional if FEC129 > are used. >- I can also read it as attachment circuit are allowed if FEC129 > is used >- I think there are a couple of other interpretations, can you > be clearer? > Could we use MAY? If there are cases when the identifiers are > not necessary, otherwise just delete =B2can=B2. I think we were trying to say that FEC129 MAY be used to identify attachment circuits of a single segment PW. It's not the attachment circuits that are optional, but rather the way you identify them. > >First paragraph - second sentence: > >"...there is a requirement for the identifiers for the > attachment circuits to be globally unique,... > >Comment - 18: >------------- >Is this clearer =B2...it is required that the attachment circuit >identifiers (AC ID) are globally unique,...=B2 ??? > >As far I can see this is the first place where Attachment Circuit >Identifiers=B2 are mention and since acronym is used later this is >the place to introduce&expand the acronym. Ok > >Section 5.1 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Figure > >Comment - 19: >------------- > >Exactly what is the Global ID. >Please explain what all the fields in the TLVs are immediately >below the figure. These are specified in RFC5003, so I propose adding a sentence to this effect. In addition, I think the rest of the figures in the draft need titles. > >Comment - 20 >------------ > >In the figure and the sentence just after the figure: > >The LDP protocol introduced (or at least picked up) a praxis that >the fields in TLV are explained just after the figures =AD can you >please do so here also. >BTW AII is not one of the well known acronyms, please expand! OK, but is it acceptable to point to RFC5003, otherwise we risk redefining them here? > > >First paragraph on page 7; the parenthesis at the end of the >paragraph. > >Current text: >(knows the address in priori by provisioning) > >Comment - 21: >------------- >Not sure this English :). >Can we use: (the PE know the address from provisioning). I think the following might be clearer: "AII Type 2 based PW addressing is suitable for point-to-point provisioning models where auto-discovery of the address at the Target T-PE is not required. That is, it is known a-priori by provisioning." > >Last paragraph. > >Comment - 22: >Is =B2PW domain=B2 defined anywhere; add a reference. >.pw stands for professional web in other contexts. >I can=B9t find a definition of =B3Pseudowire Domain (PW Domain)=B2. >The term is used in 5659 but not defined. >Thinking about it might be that what is called PSNs in figure 1 is >really PW Domains. Yes, I agree. I think it would read better as follows: "For the purpose of MS-PWs, the AII MUST be globally unique across all PSNs that the MS-PW spanned by the MS-PW." > >Section 5.2 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Comment - 23: >------------- >I'm not sure what this paragraph really says. I think you intend to >say that on each S-PE each PW must be individual accessible in >order to configure it. >Can this be made clearer? Well, this is actually trying to say that each S-PE has a special address which identifies it from a pseudowire perspective. That is, it is an identifier for the node along the path of the MS-PW. >Is AI address =3D AII address? Not quite. The AI is composed of the AGI and the AII (as defined in RFC6074). The usage does seem incorrect here, and I think it would better read: "For this purpose, at least one address of a format similar to AII type 2 [RFC5003 ] composed of the Global ID, and Prefix part, only, MUST be assigned to each S-PE. > >Section 6.1.1 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Comment- 24 >----------- >A general comment on AII, TAII and TAI, they are not among the well >known acronyms, please expand when first used. OK > >Section 6.1.2 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Last part of the paragraph. > >Comment - 25: >------------- >Exactly what is =B2S-PE1=B2 here =AD IP address?? >Why is this specific to S-PE1, does it not apply to e.g. S-PE2?? Yes, it would typically be an address representing the far end of the tLDP session to the next hop. This would apply to all next-hop Pes, whether they are S-Pes or T-Pes. So, it should probably read: Global ID =3D 0 Prefix =3D 0 AC ID =3D 0 , Prefix Length =3D 0 Next Signali= ng Hop =3D {IP address of next hop S-PE or T-PE} > > >Section 6.1.3 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Current text: >"...Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4760]..." > >Comment - 26: >I=B9m not an BGP expert but RFC4760 is Multoprotocol Extensions >for BGP. The BGP specification is RFC 4271. It is correct to >reference RFC4670, but the text should be clearer point out what >it is. >I can imagine a couple of ways to do this, but would prefer: >"...MAY choose to use Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4721] >with the Multiprotocol Extensions as defined in [RFC4760] to >propagate PW address information throughout the PSN." Agreed. > >Start of the second paragraph. > >Current text: >"Contrary to other l2vpn signaling methods that..." > >Comment/Question - 27:: > >Do we consider PWE3 signaling to be an l2vpn method? Yes, but in any case I think the paragraph is not quire correct. In RFC6074, BGP is used for auto discovery, and LDP is used for signalling. So I think this should read " Contrary to layer 2 VPN signaling methods that use BGP [RFC6074] for auto discovery, in the case of the dynamically placed MS-PW, the source T-PE knows a- priori (by provisioning) the AC ID on the terminating T-PE that signaling should use." > >The figure: > >Comment - 28: >Well, yes and maybe this is sufficient, but it is a t least a bit >hard to read, I=B9d prefer to have all 168 bits spelled out in the >figure. Any reason not to? This follows the convention used in RFC4670. I agree with you that it would be clearer to spell it out, though. > > >Section 6.2.1 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >First sentence. > >This section is not clear about the difference about BW and QoS, >it says =B2BW signaling=B2, but claim to be able to meet QoS in general. Yes, I agree. I'll try to rephrase this in the next revision to indicate that BW reservation is only one part of achieving QoS objectives. > >Paragraph before the figure. > >Comment - 29: >I still don=B9t think the 2119-language is need to describe the TLV, >2119-language is for requirements to be met. >OPTIONAL should be optional. OK > >Section 8 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Second paragraph, last sentence. > >Current text: > >"In this case, the following type MUST be used in place of type 0x01 > in the PW switching point TLV:" > >Comment - 30: >------------- >Proposed text "In this case, the following sub-TLV type (0x06) MUST >be used in place of type 0x01 in the PW switching point TLV:" OK > >Setion 10. >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >First paragraph: > >Comment - 31: >------------- >The first paragraph should be promoted to section "10.1 Corrections" OK > >AND > >Comment - 32: >------------- >As usual the devil is in the details. The IANA registry points to >RFC6073 for "L2 PW address of the PW Switching Point". RFC6073 says >that the length is 12 (bytes), so this is really an update of RFC6073. >This needs to be captured in the Abstract, Introduction and >document header. Ok >And in this document it should also be clear in section 8. > >(Current) Section 10.1 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >First paragraph, first sentence. > >Current text: > > This document uses several new LDP TLV types > >Comment - 33: >------------- >There is only one new LDP TLV Type defined by this document. OK. This is historical. I'll fix in the next revision. > >Current test: >IANA already maintains a registry of name "TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" >defined by RFC5036 > >Comment -34: >------------ >The correct name of the registry is =B2Type, Length, and Value (TLV) >Type Name Space=B2. Please update; bothe here and the title of >(current) section 10.1. OK > >First paragraph, first sentence: > >Current text: >"...IANA already maintains..." > >Comment - 35: >------------- >"Already" is unneccessary. OK > >First paragraph, last sentence. > >Current text: >"The following values are suggested for assignment:" > >Comment - 36: >------------- >Well =AD no! We should say that IANA is requested to assign on >permanent basis the value (0x096E) that has been assigned to this >document by early allocation. >Proposed text: >"The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the value >(0x096E) that has been assigned to this document by early >allocation (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21)." OK > >Comment - 37: >------------- >Please change the first paragarph of the current section 10.1 to: > > This document defines one new LDP TLV types. IANA already maintains > a registry for LDP TLV types called "Type, Length, and Value > (TLV) Type Name Space" within the "Label Distribution Protocol > (LDP) Parameters" as defined by RFC5036. The IANA is requested > to assign on permanent basis the value (0x096E) that has been > assigned to this document by early allocation (TEMPORARY - > Expires 2008-11-21).: OK > >The picture of the of the IANA allocation should look like this: > >Value Description Reference Notes/Registration Date >------+----------------+---------------+----------------------- >0x096E Bandwidth TLV This document > > >(current) Section 10.2 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Current text: >"...IANA already maintains... > >Comment - 38: >------------- >"already" is unneccessary. > >Comment - 39: > >Based on the comments on section 101.1, section 10.2 should be >changed to: > > "This document defines three new LDP status codes. IANA > maintains a registry of called "STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" in the > "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as defined by > RFC5036. The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the > values that has been assigned to this document by early allocation > (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21).:" OK > >The table describing the IANA allocation should look like this: > > Range/Value E Description Reference > ------------- ----- ---------------------- --------- > 0x00000037 0 Bandwidth resources unavailable This doc. > 0x00000038 0 Resources Unavailable This doc. > 0x00000039 0 AII Unreachable This doc. OK > >(Current) Section 10.3 >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Comment - 40: >Folowing the comments on section 10.1 and 10.2 the last sentence in >the first paragraph of section 10.3 should be changed to: > >"The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the value (6) > that has been assigned to this document by early allocation > (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21):" OK > >Section 13. Author's Address >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D >Comment - 41: >------------- >Since this document has been in progress for at least >five years can you please check if the contact info needs >to be updated. OK.=20 > > >/Loa >--=20 > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From loa@pi.nu Fri Jul 5 01:41:38 2013 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 C615111E826F for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 01:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ug1FKi5p2C0n for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 01:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BDF11E825E for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 01:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (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) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59B8A1800820; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51D686BC.1090203@pi.nu> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:41:32 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 05 Jul 2013 08:41:38 -0000 Matthew, I'm quite happy with your responses to my comments. Please use references to existing definitions. e.g. to RFC 5003 for Global ID, whenever possible. I'll wait for the updated version before go ahead and request publication. BTW - we still have less than half of the expected responses to the IPR poll. Would be good if the authors could remind each other that it is necessary to respond. /Loa On 2013-07-04 17:21, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > Loa > > Thank you very much for your detailed review. > > Please see below for some responses to your comments. > > Best regards > > Matthew > > On 20/06/2013 17:21, "Loa Andersson" wrote: > >> Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-16 >> =================================================== >> >> >> Authors/Editors I've reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-16.txt. >> In general I think the docment is useful, well-written and about >> ready to be publish as an RFC on the standards track. >> >> I reviewed version -16, but the now active document version -17 >> contains no other changes than version number and dates. >> >> I've also set the word document I've been working on to the authors. >> >> My comments are both technical and related to the style on how RFCs >> should be should be written, i.e. >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style. >> >> Being this late in the wg process some of the are also a bit nitty >> gritty, but if we want smooth ride through AD review, IESG review and >> the the editing by the RFC Editor we'd better fix them now. >> >> Comments per section: >> >> Document header >> =============== >> Comment - 1: >> -------- >> Since this document updates RFC6073 this needs to be spelled out in >> the header (more details in the commens on the IANA section (section 10)). > > Agreed > >> >> Titel: >> ===== >> >> Current text: >> Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires >> >> Comment -2: >> -------- >> There is a list kept by the RFC Editor of well-known RFC acrononyms >> are expanded >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt for >> MS-PW it says Multi-Segment Pseudowire. > > > Agreed. I will change it to 'Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment > Pseudowires'. > >> >> Section 1: >> ========== >> Current text: >> 1. Major Co-authors >> >> Comment-3: >> ---------- >> There is nothing to say about the content of this section, but the >> the structure of this document is not according to the RFC style >> guide. Is that motivated, or should it just be updated to meet what >> is said in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style? > > > I will rearrange the sections according to the guide. I think the existing > arrangement is a result of this draft being around long before the current > version of the style guide. > >> >> Comment-4: >> ---------- >> The RFC Style guide says: >> "a) Introduction >> The introduction section should always be the first section >> following the Table of Contents (except in the case of MIBs). >> While we recommend "Introduction" as the title for this section, >> authors sometimes choose alternate titles such as "Overview" or >> "Background"." >> >> Section 2: >> ========== >> Current text: >> 2. Acknowledgements >> Comment -5: >> ----------- >> Again there is nothing to say about the content of the paragraph, but >> again it breaks the structure required by the style guide. >> "Acknowledgements" is normally placed just before the "Author¹s >> Address² section and after an "Contributors" section. > > > Agreed, I'll move it. > >> >> Section 3: >> ========== >> Current text: >> 3. Introduction >> Comment - 6: >> ------------ >> This section should be Section 1. > > OK > >> >> Section 3.1. >> ============ >> First sentence of the first paragraph says: >> "[RFC5023] describes the service provider requirements for >> extending the reach of pseudowires across multiple PSN domains. >> This is achieved using a Multi-segment Pseudowire (MS-PW)." >> Comment- 7: >> ----------- >> PSN is a well know abbreviation, but since it in the RFC-Editors >> list of abbreviations are expanded two different ways and we here >> is (my opinion) within the scope of reasonable doubts of which is >> intended it should be expanded. > > Ok > >> >> Second sentence of the first paragraph says: >> "An MS-PW is defined as a set of two or more contiguous PW segments >> that behave and function as a single point-to-point PW ." >> Comment - 8: >> I can¹t find any active wg docs or RFCs on P2MP PWs, there is at >> least one individual contribution on protection of P2MP ­ and >> there have been other discussions. The way this is written it seems >> that MS-PW¹s are not for P2MP, if dynamic placement of P2MP PWs are >> thought to be possible you should add ³Dynamic placement of P2MP PWs >> are for further study and out of scope for this document². > > It is true that the MS-PW Architecture (RFC5659) only defines MS-Pws as > P2P. There has been some work to define requirements and a framework for > P2MP Pws, that includes MS-PW, but I think we always intended to extend > the P2P drafts/rfcs for this, rather than to define P2MP in the base RFCs. > I.e. There is no proper consideration of P2MP in the dynamic MS-PW draft. > Therefore, I agree with adding your proposed statement. >> >> Section 3.3 >> =========== >> >> Bullet 3, 4 and 5 says: >> " - Forward Direction: ST-PE to TT-PE. >> - Reverse Direction: TT-PE to ST-PE >> - Forwarding Direction : Direction of control plane, >> signaling flow" >> >> Comment - 9: >> ---------- >> Probably not that important, but since you want to distinguish >> between ²Forward Direction² and ²Forwarding Direction² you not >> making it easy by choosing terms that close. I have no better >> suggestion just now. >> >> Comment - 10: >> ----------- >> This indicates that there is no CP signal flow in the reverse >> direction ­ What about talking about ³Request direction² (for what >> is now² Forwarding Direction² and which is the direction the LDP >> flow is initiated and ³Response direction² which is the direction >> of the responses go? >> On the other hand why bother ­ this is the only place ³Forwarding >> Direction" is used in the document. >> > > > I agree. I think we can probably remove this term. In fact, it is the > direction of the label mapping flow for a given 'forward' or 'reverse' > direction of the PW. It is not a label request, as such (since this is > LDP-DU). > >> >> Section 3.4 >> =========== >> Under the figure >> >> Current text: >> Figure 1: PW switching Reference Model >> >> Comment - 11: >> ------------- >> Proposed new text: >> Figure 1: MS-PW switching Reference Model > > > I think it should be 'MS-PW reference Model', as per RFC5659. > >> >> First paragraph under the figure, first sentence. >> >> Current text: >> >> Figure 1 shows the architecture for a simple multi-segment case. >> >> Comment - 12: >> This confuses me a bit, I thought a reference model gave all the >> info you need. And I think this reference model does; it would be >> equally true if if there were three PSNs concatenated. Or if the >> S-PE1 put the PW segments 3 and 4 in one PSN each. A reference model >> gives you the architectural constructs, it does not describe >> separate cases. >> Propose to change the text to ³Figure 1 shows the reference model >> for MS-PWs². >> > > Agreed. > > >> >> First paragraph under the figure, third sentence. >> >> Current text: >> These PEs reside in different PSNs. >> >> Comment/Question - 13: >> Is the ²different PSNs² really required couldn¹t there be reasons >> for a operator of a single PSN to use the MS-PW technology within >> that PSN. Text seem to mandate ³different PSNs². > > There are examples where operators use MS-Pws and the segments of a given > PW can be said to span the same PSN. So I do not think that separate PSNs > should be mandated and there is nothing in the technology to restrict its > use to interconnection of separate PSNs. However, RFC5659 does talk about > PSN 1 and PSN 2 in the reference model. > >> >> First paragraph under the figure, fourth sentence. >> >> Current text: >> "A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 across PSN1, and a >> second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2." >> >> Comment - 14: >> ------------- >> Propose new text: >> A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 across PSN1 (supporting >> PW segment 1 and 2), and a second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 >> to T-PE2 (supporting PW segment 3 and 4) cross PSN2. >> > > OK > >> >> First paragraph under the figure, last sentence. >> >> Current text: >> >> "...in case of an MPLS PSN to another MPLS PSN PW switching the >> operation is a standard MPLS label switch operation." >> >> Comment - 15: >> ------------- >> I think this should be ²label swap operation² according to 3031. > > Agreed. > >> >> Section 4.1 >> =========== >> >> Current text: >> "The following OPTIONAL TLVs are also defined:" >> >> Comment - 16: >> ------------- >> Yes 2119 defines OPTIONAL as part of the 2119 language, but I don¹t >> think it is motivated here, this it just categorizing the TLV as >> optional, not specifying behaviour. Suggest using lower case - >> optional. > > OK > >> >> Sectiom 5. >> ========== >> First paragraph - first sentence. >> >> Current text: >> "Single segment pseudowires on an MPLS PSN can use attachment >> circuit identifiers for a PW using FEC 129." >> >> Comment - 17: >> ------------- >> I'm not clear on what this sentence says. >> - I can read it as that attachment circuits are optional if FEC129 >> are used. >> - I can also read it as attachment circuit are allowed if FEC129 >> is used >> - I think there are a couple of other interpretations, can you >> be clearer? >> Could we use MAY? If there are cases when the identifiers are >> not necessary, otherwise just delete ²can². > > I think we were trying to say that FEC129 MAY be used to identify > attachment circuits of a single segment PW. It's not the attachment > circuits that are optional, but rather the way you identify them. > >> >> First paragraph - second sentence: >> >> "...there is a requirement for the identifiers for the >> attachment circuits to be globally unique,... >> >> Comment - 18: >> ------------- >> Is this clearer ²...it is required that the attachment circuit >> identifiers (AC ID) are globally unique,...² ??? >> >> As far I can see this is the first place where Attachment Circuit >> Identifiers² are mention and since acronym is used later this is >> the place to introduce&expand the acronym. > > > Ok > >> >> Section 5.1 >> =========== >> Figure >> >> Comment - 19: >> ------------- >> >> Exactly what is the Global ID. >> Please explain what all the fields in the TLVs are immediately >> below the figure. > > > These are specified in RFC5003, so I propose adding a sentence to this > effect. In addition, I think the rest of the figures in the draft need > titles. > >> >> Comment - 20 >> ------------ >> >> In the figure and the sentence just after the figure: >> >> The LDP protocol introduced (or at least picked up) a praxis that >> the fields in TLV are explained just after the figures ­ can you >> please do so here also. >> BTW AII is not one of the well known acronyms, please expand! > > OK, but is it acceptable to point to RFC5003, otherwise we risk redefining > them here? > >> >> >> First paragraph on page 7; the parenthesis at the end of the >> paragraph. >> >> Current text: >> (knows the address in priori by provisioning) >> >> Comment - 21: >> ------------- >> Not sure this English :). >> Can we use: (the PE know the address from provisioning). > > I think the following might be clearer: > > "AII > Type 2 based PW addressing is suitable for point-to-point > provisioning models where auto-discovery of the address > at the Target T-PE is not required. That is, it is known a-priori by > provisioning." > >> >> Last paragraph. >> >> Comment - 22: >> Is ²PW domain² defined anywhere; add a reference. >> .pw stands for professional web in other contexts. >> I can¹t find a definition of ³Pseudowire Domain (PW Domain)². >> The term is used in 5659 but not defined. >> Thinking about it might be that what is called PSNs in figure 1 is >> really PW Domains. > > > Yes, I agree. I think it would read better as follows: > > "For the purpose of MS-PWs, the AII MUST be globally unique across all > PSNs that the MS-PW spanned by the MS-PW." > > >> >> Section 5.2 >> =========== >> Comment - 23: >> ------------- >> I'm not sure what this paragraph really says. I think you intend to >> say that on each S-PE each PW must be individual accessible in >> order to configure it. >> Can this be made clearer? > > Well, this is actually trying to say that each S-PE has a special address > which identifies it from a pseudowire perspective. That is, it is an > identifier for the node along the path of the MS-PW. > >> Is AI address = AII address? > > Not quite. The AI is composed of the AGI and the AII (as defined in > RFC6074). The usage does seem incorrect here, and I think it would better > read: > "For this purpose, at least one address of a format similar to > AII type 2 [RFC5003 ] composed of the Global ID, and Prefix part, > only, MUST be assigned to each S-PE. > > >> >> Section 6.1.1 >> ============= >> Comment- 24 >> ----------- >> A general comment on AII, TAII and TAI, they are not among the well >> known acronyms, please expand when first used. > > OK > >> >> Section 6.1.2 >> ============= >> Last part of the paragraph. >> >> Comment - 25: >> ------------- >> Exactly what is ²S-PE1² here ­ IP address?? >> Why is this specific to S-PE1, does it not apply to e.g. S-PE2?? > > Yes, it would typically be an address representing the far end of the tLDP > session to the next hop. This would apply to all next-hop Pes, whether > they are S-Pes or T-Pes. So, it should probably read: > > Global ID = 0 Prefix = 0 AC ID = 0 , Prefix Length = 0 Next Signaling Hop > = {IP address of next hop S-PE or T-PE} > > > > > >> >> >> Section 6.1.3 >> ============= >> Current text: >> "...Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4760]..." >> >> Comment - 26: >> I¹m not an BGP expert but RFC4760 is Multoprotocol Extensions >> for BGP. The BGP specification is RFC 4271. It is correct to >> reference RFC4670, but the text should be clearer point out what >> it is. >> I can imagine a couple of ways to do this, but would prefer: >> "...MAY choose to use Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4721] >> with the Multiprotocol Extensions as defined in [RFC4760] to >> propagate PW address information throughout the PSN." > > Agreed. > >> >> Start of the second paragraph. >> >> Current text: >> "Contrary to other l2vpn signaling methods that..." >> >> Comment/Question - 27:: >> >> Do we consider PWE3 signaling to be an l2vpn method? > > Yes, but in any case I think the paragraph is not quire correct. In > RFC6074, BGP is used for auto discovery, and LDP is used for signalling. > So I think this should read > " > Contrary to layer 2 VPN signaling methods that use BGP [RFC6074] for auto > discovery, in > the case of the dynamically placed MS-PW, the source T-PE knows a- > priori (by provisioning) the AC ID on the terminating T-PE that > signaling should use." > > > > >> >> The figure: >> >> Comment - 28: >> Well, yes and maybe this is sufficient, but it is a t least a bit >> hard to read, I¹d prefer to have all 168 bits spelled out in the >> figure. Any reason not to? > > This follows the convention used in RFC4670. I agree with you that it > would be clearer to spell it out, though. > >> >> >> Section 6.2.1 >> ============= >> First sentence. >> >> This section is not clear about the difference about BW and QoS, >> it says ²BW signaling², but claim to be able to meet QoS in general. > > Yes, I agree. I'll try to rephrase this in the next revision to indicate > that BW reservation is only one part of achieving QoS objectives. > >> >> Paragraph before the figure. >> >> Comment - 29: >> I still don¹t think the 2119-language is need to describe the TLV, >> 2119-language is for requirements to be met. >> OPTIONAL should be optional. > > OK > >> >> Section 8 >> ========= >> Second paragraph, last sentence. >> >> Current text: >> >> "In this case, the following type MUST be used in place of type 0x01 >> in the PW switching point TLV:" >> >> Comment - 30: >> ------------- >> Proposed text "In this case, the following sub-TLV type (0x06) MUST >> be used in place of type 0x01 in the PW switching point TLV:" > > OK > >> >> Setion 10. >> ========== >> First paragraph: >> >> Comment - 31: >> ------------- >> The first paragraph should be promoted to section "10.1 Corrections" > > OK > > >> >> AND >> >> Comment - 32: >> ------------- >> As usual the devil is in the details. The IANA registry points to >> RFC6073 for "L2 PW address of the PW Switching Point". RFC6073 says >> that the length is 12 (bytes), so this is really an update of RFC6073. >> This needs to be captured in the Abstract, Introduction and >> document header. > > Ok > >> And in this document it should also be clear in section 8. >> >> (Current) Section 10.1 >> ====================== >> First paragraph, first sentence. >> >> Current text: >> >> This document uses several new LDP TLV types >> >> Comment - 33: >> ------------- >> There is only one new LDP TLV Type defined by this document. > > OK. This is historical. I'll fix in the next revision. > >> >> Current test: >> IANA already maintains a registry of name "TLV TYPE NAME SPACE" >> defined by RFC5036 >> >> Comment -34: >> ------------ >> The correct name of the registry is ²Type, Length, and Value (TLV) >> Type Name Space². Please update; bothe here and the title of >> (current) section 10.1. > > OK > >> >> First paragraph, first sentence: >> >> Current text: >> "...IANA already maintains..." >> >> Comment - 35: >> ------------- >> "Already" is unneccessary. > > OK > >> >> First paragraph, last sentence. >> >> Current text: >> "The following values are suggested for assignment:" >> >> Comment - 36: >> ------------- >> Well ­ no! We should say that IANA is requested to assign on >> permanent basis the value (0x096E) that has been assigned to this >> document by early allocation. >> Proposed text: >> "The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the value >> (0x096E) that has been assigned to this document by early >> allocation (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21)." > > OK > >> >> Comment - 37: >> ------------- >> Please change the first paragarph of the current section 10.1 to: >> >> This document defines one new LDP TLV types. IANA already maintains >> a registry for LDP TLV types called "Type, Length, and Value >> (TLV) Type Name Space" within the "Label Distribution Protocol >> (LDP) Parameters" as defined by RFC5036. The IANA is requested >> to assign on permanent basis the value (0x096E) that has been >> assigned to this document by early allocation (TEMPORARY - >> Expires 2008-11-21).: > > OK > >> >> The picture of the of the IANA allocation should look like this: >> >> Value Description Reference Notes/Registration Date >> ------+----------------+---------------+----------------------- >> 0x096E Bandwidth TLV This document >> >> >> (current) Section 10.2 >> ====================== >> Current text: >> "...IANA already maintains... >> >> Comment - 38: >> ------------- >> "already" is unneccessary. >> >> Comment - 39: >> >> Based on the comments on section 101.1, section 10.2 should be >> changed to: >> >> "This document defines three new LDP status codes. IANA >> maintains a registry of called "STATUS CODE NAME SPACE" in the >> "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as defined by >> RFC5036. The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the >> values that has been assigned to this document by early allocation >> (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21).:" > > OK > >> >> The table describing the IANA allocation should look like this: >> >> Range/Value E Description Reference >> ------------- ----- ---------------------- --------- >> 0x00000037 0 Bandwidth resources unavailable This doc. >> 0x00000038 0 Resources Unavailable This doc. >> 0x00000039 0 AII Unreachable This doc. > > OK > >> >> (Current) Section 10.3 >> ====================== >> Comment - 40: >> Folowing the comments on section 10.1 and 10.2 the last sentence in >> the first paragraph of section 10.3 should be changed to: >> >> "The IANA is requested to assign on permanent basis the value (6) >> that has been assigned to this document by early allocation >> (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21):" > > OK > >> >> Section 13. Author's Address >> ============================ >> Comment - 41: >> ------------- >> Since this document has been in progress for at least >> five years can you please check if the contact info needs >> to be updated. > > OK. > > >> >> >> /Loa >> -- >> >> >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jul 5 05:55:37 2013 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 225CB11E82CC for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 05:55:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omZauVnz0Pkb for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 05:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BEE11E82C2 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 05:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r65CtP30011168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:55:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r65CtPpp005629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:55:25 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.5]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:55:25 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Revised milestones Thread-Index: AQHOeX7qUXIU3Nwx6k6QvhznX9GpZg== Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 12:55:25 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CDFC80CA47F60matthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: Stewart Bryant Subject: [PWE3] Revised milestones 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, 05 Jul 2013 12:55:37 -0000 --_000_CDFC80CA47F60matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WG Here are some proposed changes to the milestones for PWE3. Please let us know if you have any comments by Friday 12th July, so that we= can get them uploaded before the next IETF. Regards Matthew and Andy Aug 2012 Done - Dynamic MS PW LC Dec 2012 Sept 2013 - Congestion Considerations Sep 2012 June 2014 - Additio= nal VCCV Channel Type using the GAL Sep 2012 June 2014 - VCCV capability ne= gotiation for MPLS-TP OAM tools Dec 2012 June 2014 - Multisegment PW MIB Dec 2012 June 2014 - P2MP Requirements LC Dec 2012 Sept 2014 - Security Con= siderations LC Dec 2012 Sept 2014 - P2MP PW Signaling (root initiated) Dec = 2012 Nov 2014 - P2MP PW Signaling (leaf initiated) --_000_CDFC80CA47F60matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29DBD3527A8A0E478AAE5A0D293E185D@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
WG

Here are some proposed changes to the milestones for PWE3.

Please let us know if you have any comments by Friday 12th July, so th= at we can get them uploaded before the next IETF.

Regards


Matthew and Andy


Aug 2012 Done - Dynam= ic MS PW LC
Dec 2012 Sept 2013 - Congestion Considerations Sep 2012 June 2014 - Additional VCCV Channel Type using the GAL Sep 2012= June 2014 - VCCV capability negotiation for MPLS-TP OAM tools Dec 20= 12 June 2014 - Multisegment PW MIB
Dec 2012 June 2014 Dec 2012 Sept 2014 - Security Considerations LC Dec 2012 Sept 2014 - P2MP PW Signaling (root initiated) Dec 2012 Nov 2014 - P2MP PW Signaling (leaf initiated)
--_000_CDFC80CA47F60matthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jul 5 06:32:50 2013 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 A0EDC21F997E for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G6YPKTAv+4ov for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ADD21F9943 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-65.lucent.com [135.5.2.65]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r65DWgpk016260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:32:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r65DWd3Y017892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:32:42 -0400 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.178]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:32:39 -0400 From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" , "Loa Andersson" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Thread-Index: AQHObZvMzlIsPAkY0EqJ24+PmzHC/JlWLMNg Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:32:38 +0000 Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF8793@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: "pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 05 Jul 2013 13:32:50 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Mustapha. On 19/06/2013 18:46, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >Working Group and authors; > >The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group chairs=20 >and the document shepherd are working to prepare the publication=20 >request for this document. > >To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the=20 >document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be=20 >disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request that=20 >it is published as an RFC on the standards track. > >This mail starts that IPR poll. > >There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, ID #1810,=20 >ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at=20 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ > >Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to=20 >draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? > >If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules=20 >(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > >If you are listed in the authors section of this document please=20 >respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any=20 >relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg mailing=20 >list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until a=20 >response has been received from each author and contributor. > >Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please=20 >both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the=20 >same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. > >If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or=20 >contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of=20 >any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > >Thanks, Loa >document shepherd >-- > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From ping@pingpan.org Fri Jul 5 08:21:16 2013 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 D6FCB11E812F for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d54dNxFsME0j for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE29311E811E for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f172.google.com ([209.85.128.172]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUdbkYWJsk+8wGqgPAZnAX9arzo7VxsHF@postini.com; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:21:05 PDT Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jz10so1911767veb.17 for ; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Cu63ob15/EzWaAfh5zPnTftSEcBOYH4B6Yhzgejjf6s=; b=f22sl1wnaXypE+/8TTUskfohDWC8BV+2RJiTogMljIGmcL7/Pj4zquEqCKZNsEjKu5 5+GDlmgTgOh0PtxC5b9wJynYvfNct9QUSt5OiL9sQSdEf9ben9FVTmG8gau/8MWZWokg 93134Thysc/Cb0ez2QSppuOUR0T4qjz5f6I9aUJ8ztRdwDsBdzpd6tw3HVWuvaYNlkLJ Qq4KQvQMrYmNus9nYn9BwyHCk2sligJmCi0hpTwETyGqDgQWADM7uWtc72dEgZ4dt5KP 5gH0OyZtHubwHM8jbd9Hmoz8fzcY8XPhCW6fdrWzjzZm4aN4XNujy0M5PSP6g84UERjG mMLw== X-Received: by 10.58.45.70 with SMTP id k6mr7297670vem.9.1373037665458; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.45.70 with SMTP id k6mr7297664vem.9.1373037665328; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:21:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.132.106 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:20:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> References: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> From: Ping Pan Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:20:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Loa Andersson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cc3264e30d004e0c53ef6 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdiRnvKSny0tdLOYT4Tx/RaQICmbqSA9pPEJ1/4gI0B+d6rhxr8ZCHCtvncUgNZFnkoyAj6//viFQcnx1l0MO10fD5CynkYdA9MG2YprSGVeTW1WtWWnfa5cYgD3htVDE6c/qYDbcyewGB4gZFxgj1ttrCMA== Cc: pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org, "pwe3@ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 05 Jul 2013 15:21:17 -0000 --089e013cc3264e30d004e0c53ef6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Loa, Not aware of any IPR. Thanks! Ping - Ping On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group and authors; > > The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group > chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the > publication request for this document. > > To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the > document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be > disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request > that it is published as an RFC on the standards track. > > This mail starts that IPR poll. > > There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, > ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/**ipr/ > > Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? > > If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond > to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware > of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg mailing > list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until > a response has been received from each author and contributor. > > Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please > both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the > same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. > > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any > IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > Thanks, Loa > document shepherd > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > ______________________________**_________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pwe3 > --089e013cc3264e30d004e0c53ef6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Loa,

Not aware of any IPR.
<= div style>
Thanks!

Ping

- Ping


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Loa An= dersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
Working Group and authors;

The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group
chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the
publication request for this document.

To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the
document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be
disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request
that it is published as an RFC on the standards track.

This mail starts that IPR poll.

There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998,
ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at
https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/ipr/

Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw?

If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond to= this email regardless of whether or not you are aware
of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg mailing = list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until
a response has been received from each author and contributor.

Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please
both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the
same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.


Thanks, Loa
document shepherd
--


Loa Andersson =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--089e013cc3264e30d004e0c53ef6-- From agmalis@gmail.com Sat Jul 6 10:17:21 2013 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 020C421F9C6B for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:17:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+EcLSpujXni for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F333921F999C for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so8995001wiw.0 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT) 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=AwkoJLbPa5VwGzXT9qTc7autudbY+rE2iWN7zJysDYs=; b=JKTjvjfP31XFtuRbfgfAoIoOW+4lCZuonJh9PCibBwv9aYscqGuk7Q1wiO5r7z28X6 pAFtMOYFhUsrbcZaL7+TgPpm3iuwdmyclab+llf9AMe32sQeBj7sNSLq1L1ZLAMDftPM jTD+c7LPJmSYPYATOazR7Yecj+KSH6rs2HmdIS6UujAHhpClpI1YUhbHdWkZxx/NEfS6 E6u1R0M7zgwttFXbihQSrbvmU0kpvLPpJOg9i0j41SE/YdA2DZgXkTArMGavmZ4q09SM XPTubWIWo4MkpkzxofMYRuWv/pWXTpizNBlDuYubh4GC2O+tw7UHCdOT1FimuJXT9RPi rnvQ== X-Received: by 10.194.123.199 with SMTP id mc7mr8548311wjb.35.1373131039045; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:17:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.241.200 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:16:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130703051701.22549.85585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20130703051701.22549.85585.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:16:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012279acd000b204e0dafbfd Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: Draft submission deadlines change 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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:17:21 -0000 --089e012279acd000b204e0dafbfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 PWE3ers, You may have seen this already, but just in case ... Although there is an extra week for -00 drafts, the earlier you upload your drafts, the more time that people have to read it prior to the IETF meeting. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Chair Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM Subject: Draft submission deadlines change To: IETF Announcement List Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft submission: Monday 15th July. Previously, there had been two different deadlines, one for -00 and another one for other versions. The IESG has decided to experiment with just one deadline for now to simplify the set of deadlines and enable easier submission of new drafts. While we realise that the change comes near the deadline, we hope that you find the extra time useful. But please do note that working group chairs will continue to make smart decisions about what topics are worthwhile for discussing in a session in the upcoming meeting, and will also set their agendas in a timely manner and create deadlines for their working groups that must be adhered to. The earlier new drafts are submitted, the more time there is to talk about them on the mailing lists and consider them for the session agendas. This is particularly important for BoFs. Jari Arkko for the IESG --089e012279acd000b204e0dafbfd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PWE3ers,

You may have seen this already, but j= ust in case ...

Although there is an extra week for -00 drafts= , the earlier you upload your drafts, the more time that people have to rea= d it prior to the IETF meeting.

Cheers,
Andy

---------- = Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Ch= air <chair@ietf.= org>
Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM
Subject: Draft submission deadlines ch= ange
To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>


Please note that for IETF 8= 7, there is only one deadline for draft submission: Monday 15th July. Previ= ously, there had been two different deadlines, one for -00 and another one = for other versions. The IESG has decided to experiment with just one deadli= ne for now to simplify the set of deadlines and enable easier submission of= new drafts. While we realise that the change comes near the deadline, we h= ope that you find the extra time useful.

But please do note that working group chairs will continue to make smart de= cisions about what topics are worthwhile for discussing in a session in the= upcoming meeting, and will also set their agendas in a timely manner and c= reate deadlines for their working groups that must be adhered to. The earli= er new drafts are submitted, the more time there is to talk about them on t= he mailing lists and consider them for the session agendas. This is particu= larly important for BoFs.

Jari Arkko for the IESG

--089e012279acd000b204e0dafbfd-- From amalis@gmail.com Sat Jul 6 10:29:52 2013 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 2E48921F998B for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:29:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8f6M9sK+Mz3 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com (mail-oa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A14021F90DC for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f4so4703198oah.35 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=3O7+2K16ybB/fVaTJUiaa70pzaD9tenCpY4sQfbKb0U=; b=sNqjQwd2VNEKhOkWoEQF8YzbYuFeaGxMCgHcT2CAjCk9gxc4W9+zKi0qX3ihffcJmk LDgIN9aPatpQ8FUm3Paf6Em3InF63lNjeR28sNIonANRl2n3Q+QVPaMqmlWvDy4oR00z RxmaChIOmEOf6lbEfC2MslUIMnKkr1fDsYyrMqP/fe+YxDI78ue2aUHhO9lpmGNnQe0N ScoShaQcCgaNn+w5dxoffUlWwvW2Fg/lPwiNPQvJx+waOK/dH4DUXb/QDl76Fos5l69g XYlVaOxBqtfhHFNmuKG+xrfOOgIiYuHD6lnUh89ABNYPmMP4OK2mIyaLxSLBDxnExjKM cGtg== X-Received: by 10.60.55.65 with SMTP id q1mr15408923oep.92.1373131791077; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: amalis@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.131.195 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:29:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130617135700.1E9C262114@rfc-editor.org> References: <20130617135700.1E9C262114@rfc-editor.org> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:29:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: x0KelwB3L5fOndsoTgP7Bn6gtWE Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a5c4a31bdc04e0db28ee Cc: joel.repiquet@in2eps.com, "pwe3@ietf.org" , "Aissaoui, Mustapha \(Mustapha\)" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6870 (3656) 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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:29:52 -0000 --089e0122a5c4a31bdc04e0db28ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that this errata is correct. As it is editorial and the reader can easily figure out how to find section 15, and there are no other errata at this time, I don't think it merits an updated RFC. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM, RFC Errata System < rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6870, > "Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D6870&eid=3D3656 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Jo=C4=97l Repiquet > > Section: GLOBAL > > Original Text > ------------- > Section 15 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Appendix A > > Notes > ----- > 8 occurences: Section 15, 15.2, 15.5, Section 15.2, Section 15.1, Section > 15.1, Section 15.3, Section 15.3 > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6870 (draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit > Publication Date : February 2013 > Author(s) : P. Muley, Ed., M. Aissaoui, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > --089e0122a5c4a31bdc04e0db28ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that this errata is correct. As it is editori= al and the reader can easily figure out how to find section 15, and there a= re no other errata at this time, I don't think it merits an updated RFC= .

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
The following errata report has been submitt= ed for RFC6870,
"Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc= =3D6870&eid=3D3656

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Jo=C4=97l Repiquet <joel.repiquet@in2eps.com>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------
Section 15

Corrected Text
--------------
Appendix A

Notes
-----
8 occurences: Section 15, 15.2, 15.5, Section 15.2, Section 15.1, Section 1= 5.1, Section 15.3, Section 15.3

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, plea= se
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6870 (draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-09)
--------------------------------------
Title =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Pseudowire Prefere= ntial Forwarding Status Bit
Publication Date =C2=A0 =C2=A0: February 2013
Author(s) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : P. Muley, Ed., M. Aissaoui, = Ed.
Category =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: PROPOSED STANDARD
Source =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Pseudowire Emulati= on Edge to Edge
Area =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Routing
Stream =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IETF
Verifying Party =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IESG

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


--089e0122a5c4a31bdc04e0db28ee-- From mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jul 8 06:23:00 2013 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 35ECA21F9C4E for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFF9J1BwOS+8 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237C721F9C37 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-65.lucent.com [135.5.2.65]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r68DMoSf007725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:22:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r68DMni5013689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:22:49 -0400 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.178]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:22:49 -0400 From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , RFC Errata System Thread-Topic: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6870 (3656) Thread-Index: AQHOa2Li1xKzm4H9O0KE9wrDJpWeSJlYSQeAgAKb1CA= Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:22:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FE@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <20130617135700.1E9C262114@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FEUS70UWXCHMBA01z_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: "joel.repiquet@in2eps.com" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6870 (3656) 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, 08 Jul 2013 13:23:00 -0000 --_000_4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FEUS70UWXCHMBA01z_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhhbmtzIEFuZHkgZm9yIHRoZSByZXBseS4gSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHlvdXIgZGVjaXNpb24uIEkg YmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgY2hhbmdlIG9jY3VycmVkIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgZWRpdGluZyBwcm9jZXNzIGFz IEkgaGF2ZSBpdCBudW1iZXJlZCBhcyBTZWN0aW9uIDE1IHdpdGggYSB0aXRsZSBvZiDigJxBcHBl bmRpeCBBIC0gQXBwbGljYXRpb25zIG9mIFBXIFJlZHVuZGFuY3kgUHJvY2VkdXJlc+KAnSBpbiB0 aGUgbGFzdCB2ZXJzaW9uIEkgc3VibWl0dGVkLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KTXVzdGFwaGEuDQoNCkZy b206IGFtYWxpc0BnbWFpbC5jb20gW21haWx0bzphbWFsaXNAZ21haWwuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYg T2YgQW5kcmV3IEcuIE1hbGlzDQpTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgSnVseSAwNiwgMjAxMyAxOjMwIFBN DQpUbzogUkZDIEVycmF0YSBTeXN0ZW0NCkNjOiBNdWxleSwgUHJhdmVlbiBWIChQcmF2ZWVuKTsg QWlzc2FvdWksIE11c3RhcGhhIChNdXN0YXBoYSk7IFN0ZXdhcnQgQnJ5YW50IChzdGJyeWFudCk7 IEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWw7IEJvY2NpLCBNYXR0aGV3IChNYXR0aGV3KTsgcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZzsg am9lbC5yZXBpcXVldEBpbjJlcHMuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BXRTNdIFtFZGl0b3JpYWwg RXJyYXRhIFJlcG9ydGVkXSBSRkM2ODcwICgzNjU2KQ0KDQpJIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBlcnJh dGEgaXMgY29ycmVjdC4gQXMgaXQgaXMgZWRpdG9yaWFsIGFuZCB0aGUgcmVhZGVyIGNhbiBlYXNp bHkgZmlndXJlIG91dCBob3cgdG8gZmluZCBzZWN0aW9uIDE1LCBhbmQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vIG90 aGVyIGVycmF0YSBhdCB0aGlzIHRpbWUsIEkgZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgaXQgbWVyaXRzIGFuIHVwZGF0 ZWQgUkZDLg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpBbmR5DQoNCk9uIE1vbiwgSnVuIDE3LCAyMDEzIGF0IDk6NTcg QU0sIFJGQyBFcnJhdGEgU3lzdGVtIDxyZmMtZWRpdG9yQHJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnPG1haWx0bzpy ZmMtZWRpdG9yQHJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnPj4gd3JvdGU6DQpUaGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGVycmF0YSBy ZXBvcnQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VibWl0dGVkIGZvciBSRkM2ODcwLA0KIlBzZXVkb3dpcmUgUHJlZmVy ZW50aWFsIEZvcndhcmRpbmcgU3RhdHVzIEJpdCIuDQoNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpZb3UgbWF5IHJldmlldyB0aGUgcmVwb3J0IGJlbG93IGFuZCBhdDoN Cmh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvZXJyYXRhX3NlYXJjaC5waHA/cmZjPTY4NzAmZWlk PTM2NTYNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NClR5cGU6IEVk aXRvcmlhbA0KUmVwb3J0ZWQgYnk6IEpvxJdsIFJlcGlxdWV0IDxqb2VsLnJlcGlxdWV0QGluMmVw cy5jb208bWFpbHRvOmpvZWwucmVwaXF1ZXRAaW4yZXBzLmNvbT4+DQoNClNlY3Rpb246IEdMT0JB TA0KDQpPcmlnaW5hbCBUZXh0DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpTZWN0aW9uIDE1DQoNCkNvcnJlY3Rl ZCBUZXh0DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KQXBwZW5kaXggQQ0KDQpOb3Rlcw0KLS0tLS0NCjggb2Nj dXJlbmNlczogU2VjdGlvbiAxNSwgMTUuMiwgMTUuNSwgU2VjdGlvbiAxNS4yLCBTZWN0aW9uIDE1 LjEsIFNlY3Rpb24gMTUuMSwgU2VjdGlvbiAxNS4zLCBTZWN0aW9uIDE1LjMNCg0KSW5zdHJ1Y3Rp b25zOg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KVGhpcyBlcnJhdGEgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHBvc3RlZCBhcyAi UmVwb3J0ZWQiLiBJZiBuZWNlc3NhcnksIHBsZWFzZQ0KdXNlICJSZXBseSBBbGwiIHRvIGRpc2N1 c3Mgd2hldGhlciBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdmVyaWZpZWQgb3INCnJlamVjdGVkLiBXaGVuIGEgZGVj aXNpb24gaXMgcmVhY2hlZCwgdGhlIHZlcmlmeWluZyBwYXJ0eSAoSUVTRykNCmNhbiBsb2cgaW4g dG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgYW5kIGVkaXQgdGhlIHJlcG9ydCwgaWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5Lg0K DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KUkZDNjg3MCAoZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wd2UzLXJlZHVuZGFuY3ktYml0LTA5KQ0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NClRpdGxlICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOiBQc2V1ZG93aXJlIFByZWZlcmVudGlh bCBGb3J3YXJkaW5nIFN0YXR1cyBCaXQNClB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGUgICAgOiBGZWJydWFyeSAy MDEzDQpBdXRob3IocykgICAgICAgICAgIDogUC4gTXVsZXksIEVkLiwgTS4gQWlzc2FvdWksIEVk Lg0KQ2F0ZWdvcnkgICAgICAgICAgICA6IFBST1BPU0VEIFNUQU5EQVJEDQpTb3VyY2UgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDogUHNldWRvd2lyZSBFbXVsYXRpb24gRWRnZSB0byBFZGdlDQpBcmVhICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDogUm91dGluZw0KU3RyZWFtICAgICAgICAgICAgICA6IElFVEYNClZlcmlmeWluZyBQ YXJ0eSAgICAgOiBJRVNHDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fDQpwd2UzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86cHdlM0Bp ZXRmLm9yZz4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcHdlMw0KDQo= --_000_4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FEUS70UWXCHMBA01z_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTIgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhvbWE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2 IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBs aS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t Oi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJv bWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXBy aW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQph OnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5 Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4u RW1haWxTdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOndpbmRvd3RleHQ7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERl ZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24x DQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9 DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEt LVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlk bWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+ DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0 YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxi b2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9 IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlm JnF1b3Q7Ij5UaGFua3MgQW5keSBmb3IgdGhlIHJlcGx5LiBJIGFncmVlIHdpdGggeW91ciBkZWNp c2lvbi4gSSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2Ugb2NjdXJyZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBlZGl0aW5nIHBy b2Nlc3MgYXMgSSBoYXZlIGl0IG51bWJlcmVkIGFzIFNlY3Rpb24gMTUgd2l0aCBhIHRpdGxlIG9m IOKAnEFwcGVuZGl4DQogQSAtIEFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBvZiBQVyBSZWR1bmRhbmN5IFByb2NlZHVy ZXPigJ0gaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgdmVyc2lvbiBJIHN1Ym1pdHRlZC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtz YW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij5SZWdhcmRzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPk11c3RhcGhhLjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYm cXVvdDsiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpu b25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4g MGluIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7 Ij5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6JnF1b3Q7VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPiBhbWFsaXNAZ21h aWwuY29tIFttYWlsdG86YW1hbGlzQGdtYWlsLmNvbV0NCjxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+QW5k cmV3IEcuIE1hbGlzPGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IFNhdHVyZGF5LCBKdWx5IDA2LCAyMDEzIDE6 MzAgUE08YnI+DQo8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IFJGQyBFcnJhdGEgU3lzdGVtPGJyPg0KPGI+Q2M6PC9iPiBN dWxleSwgUHJhdmVlbiBWIChQcmF2ZWVuKTsgQWlzc2FvdWksIE11c3RhcGhhIChNdXN0YXBoYSk7 IFN0ZXdhcnQgQnJ5YW50IChzdGJyeWFudCk7IEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWw7IEJvY2NpLCBNYXR0aGV3 IChNYXR0aGV3KTsgcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgam9lbC5yZXBpcXVldEBpbjJlcHMuY29tPGJyPg0K PGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBbUFdFM10gW0VkaXRvcmlhbCBFcnJhdGEgUmVwb3J0ZWRdIFJG QzY4NzAgKDM2NTYpPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+SSBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZXJyYXRhIGlzIGNvcnJlY3QuIEFzIGl0IGlzIGVk aXRvcmlhbCBhbmQgdGhlIHJlYWRlciBjYW4gZWFzaWx5IGZpZ3VyZSBvdXQgaG93IHRvIGZpbmQg c2VjdGlvbiAxNSwgYW5kIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyBvdGhlciBlcnJhdGEgYXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lLCBJ IGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIGl0IG1lcml0cyBhbiB1cGRhdGVkIFJGQy48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpDaGVlcnMs PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkFuZHk8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+T24gTW9uLCBKdW4gMTcsIDIwMTMgYXQgOTo1NyBBTSwgUkZDIEVycmF0YSBT eXN0ZW0gJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpyZmMtZWRpdG9yQHJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnIiB0YXJn ZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+cmZjLWVkaXRvckByZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIu MHB0Ij5UaGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGVycmF0YSByZXBvcnQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VibWl0dGVkIGZvciBS RkM2ODcwLDxicj4NCiZxdW90O1BzZXVkb3dpcmUgUHJlZmVyZW50aWFsIEZvcndhcmRpbmcgU3Rh dHVzIEJpdCZxdW90Oy48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLTxicj4NCllvdSBtYXkgcmV2aWV3IHRoZSByZXBvcnQgYmVsb3cgYW5kIGF0Ojxicj4N CjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvZXJyYXRhX3NlYXJjaC5waHA/cmZj PTY4NzAmYW1wO2VpZD0zNjU2IiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yZmMtZWRpdG9y Lm9yZy9lcnJhdGFfc2VhcmNoLnBocD9yZmM9Njg3MCZhbXA7ZWlkPTM2NTY8L2E+PGJyPg0KPGJy Pg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS08YnI+DQpUeXBlOiBFZGl0 b3JpYWw8YnI+DQpSZXBvcnRlZCBieTogSm/El2wgUmVwaXF1ZXQgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0 bzpqb2VsLnJlcGlxdWV0QGluMmVwcy5jb20iPmpvZWwucmVwaXF1ZXRAaW4yZXBzLmNvbTwvYT4m Z3Q7PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KU2VjdGlvbjogR0xPQkFMPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KT3JpZ2luYWwgVGV4dDxi cj4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS08YnI+DQpTZWN0aW9uIDE1PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KQ29ycmVjdGVkIFRl eHQ8YnI+DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLTxicj4NCkFwcGVuZGl4IEE8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpOb3Rlczxi cj4NCi0tLS0tPGJyPg0KOCBvY2N1cmVuY2VzOiBTZWN0aW9uIDE1LCAxNS4yLCAxNS41LCBTZWN0 aW9uIDE1LjIsIFNlY3Rpb24gMTUuMSwgU2VjdGlvbiAxNS4xLCBTZWN0aW9uIDE1LjMsIFNlY3Rp b24gMTUuMzxicj4NCjxicj4NCkluc3RydWN0aW9uczo8YnI+DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPGJyPg0K VGhpcyBlcnJhdGEgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHBvc3RlZCBhcyAmcXVvdDtSZXBvcnRlZCZxdW90Oy4g SWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LCBwbGVhc2U8YnI+DQp1c2UgJnF1b3Q7UmVwbHkgQWxsJnF1b3Q7IHRvIGRp c2N1c3Mgd2hldGhlciBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdmVyaWZpZWQgb3I8YnI+DQpyZWplY3RlZC4gV2hl biBhIGRlY2lzaW9uIGlzIHJlYWNoZWQsIHRoZSB2ZXJpZnlpbmcgcGFydHkgKElFU0cpPGJyPg0K Y2FuIGxvZyBpbiB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIHN0YXR1cyBhbmQgZWRpdCB0aGUgcmVwb3J0LCBpZiBu ZWNlc3NhcnkuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS08YnI+DQpSRkM2ODcwIChkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXB3ZTMtcmVkdW5kYW5jeS1iaXQtMDkpPGJyPg0K LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS08YnI+DQpUaXRsZSAmbmJzcDsg Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgOiBQc2V1ZG93aXJlIFBy ZWZlcmVudGlhbCBGb3J3YXJkaW5nIFN0YXR1cyBCaXQ8YnI+DQpQdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBEYXRlICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDs6IEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDIwMTM8YnI+DQpBdXRob3IocykgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAm bmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyA6IFAuIE11bGV5LCBFZC4sIE0uIEFpc3Nhb3VpLCBFZC48YnI+ DQpDYXRlZ29yeSAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOzogUFJP UE9TRUQgU1RBTkRBUkQ8YnI+DQpTb3VyY2UgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7OiBQc2V1ZG93aXJlIEVtdWxhdGlvbiBFZGdlIHRvIEVkZ2U8YnI+ DQpBcmVhICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAm bmJzcDs6IFJvdXRpbmc8YnI+DQpTdHJlYW0gJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7OiBJRVRGPGJyPg0KVmVyaWZ5aW5nIFBhcnR5ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJz cDsgOiBJRVNHPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX188YnI+DQpwd2UzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdDxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpw d2UzQGlldGYub3JnIj5wd2UzQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcHdlMyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHBzOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcHdlMzwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FEUS70UWXCHMBA01z_-- From stbryant@cisco.com Mon Jul 8 06:29:36 2013 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 3B8D521F9C66 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HUV+-MpSKNa for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1023821F9C68 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:29:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373290171; x=1374499771; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WHMKbILHheJZ6BTw9QUA7b2qjk7FuipgdpMh4+mMUQg=; b=PSw4Bw835abmnbgJLdnLn3ksHeLZ9rqcqb48Ke0lpsUUKglulvbhVtlr sbK6Khmmre7LdaiER+VyJtfIGduri6wrqziADj2SM/buy/JkbltJbNlPm QjtFXCxYKUwbrte7rghzIgvChTiwKwcP6hS4MsCRQmQFJ2cX+F+OHmOAP Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiIKANG72lGQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABAGoMJMoNVvVUDAYEPFnSCIwEBAQQBAQEgDwEFNgoBEAsRBAEBAQICBRYIAwICCQMCAQIBDwYfCQgGDQEFAgEBh3kDDwwzpw6IEw2IUYEmi1qBeHMHglSBHAOVbIFnjCOFJYMSeQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1020,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="14967007" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2013 13:29:29 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r68DTQJ1009430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 13:29:27 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r68DTOQx015882; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:29:24 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <51DABEB4.7010209@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:29:24 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" References: <20130617135700.1E9C262114@rfc-editor.org> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FE@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D66BF92FE@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "joel.repiquet@in2eps.com" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "Andrew G. Malis" , RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6870 (3656) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:29:36 -0000 I have marked it as fix when (if) updated. Stewart On 08/07/2013 14:22, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote: > > Thanks Andy for the reply. I agree with your decision. I believe the > change occurred during the editing process as I have it numbered as > Section 15 with a title of “Appendix A - Applications of PW Redundancy > Procedures†in the last version I submitted. > > Regards, > > Mustapha. > > *From:*amalis@gmail.com [mailto:amalis@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of > *Andrew G. Malis > *Sent:* Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:30 PM > *To:* RFC Errata System > *Cc:* Muley, Praveen V (Praveen); Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); > Stewart Bryant (stbryant); Adrian Farrel; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); > pwe3@ietf.org; joel.repiquet@in2eps.com > *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6870 (3656) > > I agree that this errata is correct. As it is editorial and the reader > can easily figure out how to find section 15, and there are no other > errata at this time, I don't think it merits an updated RFC. > > Cheers, > > Andy > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM, RFC Errata System > > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6870, > "Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6870&eid=3656 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Joėl Repiquet > > > Section: GLOBAL > > Original Text > ------------- > Section 15 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Appendix A > > Notes > ----- > 8 occurences: Section 15, 15.2, 15.5, Section 15.2, Section 15.1, > Section 15.1, Section 15.3, Section 15.3 > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6870 (draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit > Publication Date : February 2013 > Author(s) : P. Muley, Ed., M. Aissaoui, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html From david.sinicrope@ericsson.com Thu Jul 11 02:07:00 2013 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 B494421F9684 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:07:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGDCYOKrvedc for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BFA21F9D89 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:06:50 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f986d000007a82-68-51de75a9c665 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.EC.31362.9A57ED15; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:06:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:06:49 -0400 From: David Sinicrope To: IETF.PWE3 Thread-Topic: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOdNnjrcBlgsO99E2H6EdkAurdrJlfQj2A Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:06:48 +0000 Message-ID: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C0622D3@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6Eeusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO6q0nuBBnP+sFn0fdrC4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujKtP/7MVbNKqOL11PmMD4y6VLkZODgkBE4l37/ezQNhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4yihxf/JVJghnOaPE3bvnmUGq2IA61m3cA9YhIiAr8fr6PTYQW1jAQKL/yXKo uKHE3LMbWbsYOYBsI4nLC5lAwiwCqhKfHp1jBbF5BXwlnp5vZQQp4RTwk3gyNxAkzAh0w/dT a8DKmQXEJW49mc8EcZuAxJI9EBdICIhKvHz8D2yMqICexPr23VA1yhJLnkD8wiyQLzHl8WsW iFWCEidnPmGZwCgyC8nYWUjKZiEpg4gbSLw/N58ZwtaWWLbwNZStL7Hxy1lGCNta4vrlh6zI ahYwcqxi5CgtTi3LTTcy3MQIjJ9jEmyOOxgXfLI8xCjNwaIkzrtB70ygkEB6YklqdmpqQWpR fFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBsYlGvXfZa6WzTg2cWdt1PTnE/UDt6tP3x2u8z2ILerb1lOSW5wPZ06P +vP9mYjlhysMTim75axad9vKBoVGe63Y1Zr7e8eVouy587fcFtpbo99985tHMe/aCdHpd4Mr X1kt1avfXDZrf2V6fyGvyZzL7i8MvWx/7F4ux5bXYFvzIbBU79nn7bOUWIozEg21mIuKEwFF N/aRbQIAAA== Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin 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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:07:01 -0000 --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6Eeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, The agenda for Berlin can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/ Important dates can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-= 2013.html#IETF87 Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for both= =9600 and other drafts. I've only gotten one slot request so far=85 If you need a slot, please see the email below. Thanks! Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03 AM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, It's that time again. The draft agenda for Berlin is out. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/ As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:30. = (90 minutes) If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, please reply = to this email (subject intact) completing the form below: - topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking): - draft URL (e.g., http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth= -oam-iwk/): - brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed and re= solved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and get = direction from the WG): - requested duration (norm is 10 min): - speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME): Thanks! Dave --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6Eeusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <4204193DD60CD247BE7DBD3AB177B9A4@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
The agenda for Berlin can be found at:

Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for= both =9600 and other drafts.

I've only gotten one slot request so far=85

If you need a slot, please see the email below.

Thanks!
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03= AM
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests= - Berlin


Hi All,

It's that time again.  The draft agenda for Berlin is out.

As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:= 30.  (90 minutes)


If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, pleas= e reply to this email (subject intact) completing the form below:


- topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking):


- brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed a= nd resolved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and= get direction from the WG):  

- requested duration (norm is 10 min):  

- speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME):  



Thanks!
Dave
--_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6Eeusaamb103erics_-- From loa@pi.nu Mon Jul 15 01:34:36 2013 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 AF48721F9981 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pdp8XiJvR-SI for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD8821F9F02 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (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) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 234201800820; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51E3B33E.7080101@pi.nu> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:30:54 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pwe3@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org References: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 15 Jul 2013 08:34:36 -0000 Authors, Currently draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw hangs on missing responses on the IPR poll. A few days short of a month after starting the IPR poll and if my tracking is correct (sorry if I missed someone) this is the status: - We have 20 listed authors - 7 have responded to the list. - One (Luca) has sent me a uni-directional mail. -- Note that strictly a mail to the list is required, but I'm not going to try to enforce that. - I've received 2 responses form people not listed as authors - tnx! - I still miss responses from the 12 authors listed below: 1. Florin Balus 2. Jason Rusmisel 3. Yetik Serbest 4. Chris Metz 5. Jeff Sugimoto 6. Mike Duckett 7. Mike Loomis 8. Paul Doolan 9. Prayson Pate 10. Vasile Radoaca 11. Yuichiro Wada 12. Yeongil Seo Can you please respond to the IPR poll (to the pwe3 mailing list) as soon as possible. /Loa document shepherd On 2013-06-19 19:46, Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group and authors; > > The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group > chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the > publication request for this document. > > To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the > document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be > disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request > that it is published as an RFC on the standards track. > > This mail starts that IPR poll. > > There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, > ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ > > Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? > > If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond > to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware > of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg > mailing list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until > a response has been received from each author and contributor. > > Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please > both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the > same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. > > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any > IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > Thanks, Loa > document shepherd -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From chmetz@cisco.com Mon Jul 15 08:51:19 2013 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 9836E11E812D for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q03Mg5JCxSji for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06F621E80B5 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:51:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6942; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373903465; x=1375113065; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=sJDX5mTSjMI8eBh3SUp7aCcpDTQaRS08gFBTZDJvEDs=; b=hsqopDhJCrqtgghxslI/v9wQDZn4uKKo8hMROBlsSzB23tLi6ZA3P5KC EB6YYMJbysh6pO2zobfPIOo1Ea41vENFm+c4tf0OUK7TUvtdesha01L41 APtYddawiACr9yd0cJlyqi9khbTMsHdHN6zPK3a2rFygz0lWG6CzthWnQ g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAFgZ5FGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagwY0wiGBExZ0giMBAQEDAQEBAWgDBgUFCQILGC4bDDAGE4gKBgy1TQQEjh4QgQYoBAeDC20DiSeONZFNgTWBfRyBNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,669,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217";a="234992960" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2013 15:51:05 +0000 Received: from che-vpn-cluster-2-273.cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-2-273.cisco.com [10.86.243.18]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6FFp2Ng024281; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:51:02 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_97D1C020-3B22-422D-83F5-D22A41E8E2CA" From: Chris Metz In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:51:04 -0700 Message-Id: <222F0C53-1CAB-4FCE-91C8-16D9C4AFCBF3@cisco.com> References: <51C1EE5E.7030403@pi.nu> To: Loa Andersson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 15 Jul 2013 15:51:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_97D1C020-3B22-422D-83F5-D22A41E8E2CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Loa- I reviewed the 4 x IPR disclosures. I am not aware of any other IPR = associated with this draft. Thanks, -cm On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Ping Pan wrote: > Loa, >=20 > Not aware of any IPR. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ping >=20 > - Ping >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group and authors; >=20 > The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group > chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the > publication request for this document. >=20 > To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the > document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be > disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request > that it is published as an RFC on the standards track. >=20 > This mail starts that IPR poll. >=20 > There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, > ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ >=20 > Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? >=20 > If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >=20 > If you are listed in the authors section of this document please = respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware > of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg = mailing list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until > a response has been received from each author and contributor. >=20 > Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please > both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At = the > same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. >=20 > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author = or > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of = any > IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >=20 >=20 > Thanks, Loa > document shepherd > --=20 >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --Apple-Mail=_97D1C020-3B22-422D-83F5-D22A41E8E2CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi Loa-
I reviewed the 4 x IPR disclosures. I am not aware of any other IPR associated with this draft.

Thanks,

-cm


On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Ping Pan wrote:

Loa,

Not aware of any IPR.

Thanks!

Ping

- Ping


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
Working Group and authors;

The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group
chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the
publication request for this document.

To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the
document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be
disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request
that it is published as an RFC on the standards track.

This mail starts that IPR poll.

There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998,
ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/

Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw?

If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware
of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg mailing list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until
a response has been received from each author and contributor.

Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please
both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the
same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.


Thanks, Loa
document shepherd
--


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--Apple-Mail=_97D1C020-3B22-422D-83F5-D22A41E8E2CA-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jul 15 11:46:21 2013 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 7AC2611E81E6; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34RPwC-MwJQk; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50B011E817C; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130715184620.9068.65819.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:46:20 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08.txt 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, 15 Jul 2013 18:46:22 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working= Group of the IETF. Title : MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking Author(s) : Dinesh Mohan Nabil Bitar Ali Sajassi Simon Delord France Telecom Ray Qiu Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2013-07-15 Abstract: This document specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3 architecture to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to Ethernet PW and AC defects. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From paul.doolan@coriant.com Tue Jul 16 06:20:34 2013 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 E682521E8050 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aC5dmNa1+ggx for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35EB11E80D7 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail14-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.235) by CH1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.43.70.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:27 +0000 Received: from mail14-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail14-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C952A3E0090; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.248.165; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AMXPRD0410HT003.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: PS0(zzc85fhzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz18c673h8275bhz2fh2a8h668h839hbe3hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail14-ch1: domain of coriant.com designates 157.56.248.165 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.248.165; envelope-from=paul.doolan@coriant.com; helo=AMXPRD0410HT003.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail14-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail14-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1373980825637006_11754; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.231]) by mail14-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968DD18004A; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AMXPRD0410HT003.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.165) by CH1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.43.70.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:21 +0000 Received: from AMXPRD0410MB364.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.210]) by AMXPRD0410HT003.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.56.38]) with mapi id 14.16.0329.000; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:16 +0000 From: "Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Re:IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Thread-Index: AQHOgic1IZ0WsWBj+E2Fvhpp/m2HHg== Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:15 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.56.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DA9D6B32F692474B9A715C9CE03DCE7Ecoriantcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: coriant.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:11:22 -0700 Cc: "andrew.g.malis@verizon.com" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 16 Jul 2013 14:31:39 -0000 --_000_DA9D6B32F692474B9A715C9CE03DCE7Ecoriantcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Loa, >If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond t= o this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR= . I am not aware of any relevant IPR (other than the 4 you mention). >At the same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. My email and company details need to be changed: paul dot doolan at coriant dot com Coriant GmbH & Co. KG St Martin Str. 76 81541 Munich thanks, pd --_000_DA9D6B32F692474B9A715C9CE03DCE7Ecoriantcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Loa, 

>If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respon= d to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

I am not aware o= f any relevant IPR (other than the 4 you mention).

>= At the same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be up= dated.

My email and company details need to be changed:

paul dot doolan at coriant dot com
Coriant GmbH & Co. KG
St Martin Str. 76
81541 Munich


thanks,
pd

--_000_DA9D6B32F692474B9A715C9CE03DCE7Ecoriantcom_-- From david.sinicrope@ericsson.com Tue Jul 16 14:24:05 2013 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 318BB11E80ED for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3zIR8RETy5s for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5B421F9EDF for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:23:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fc36d0000032ea-29-51e5b9ec18b6 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1A.5A.13034.CE9B5E15; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:23:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:23:56 -0400 From: David Sinicrope To: IETF.PWE3 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOdNnjrcBlgsO99E2H6EdkAurdrJlfQj2AgAipmYA= Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:23:55 +0000 Message-ID: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C06CC6E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6eusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO6bnU8DDfZ/VbTo+7SFxYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGetvshf8N6+Y1hbfwDjfoIuRk0NCwETi6OLtrBC2mMSFe+vZ uhi5OIQEjjJKnDi/hR3CWc4o8bZnOxtIFRtQx7qNe1hAbBEBWYnX1++BxYUFzCVu7V7F3MXI ARS3kLhwXAaixEriZVMLWAmLgKrEpCu/wEp4BXwlzvZbgYQ5BfwkdvyZCnYDI9AN30+tYQKx mQXEJW49mc8EcZuAxJI955khbFGJl4//gdWLCuhJrG/fDVWjLLHkyX4WiN58iY3bFoDV8AoI Spyc+YRlAqPILCRjZyEpm4WkDCJuIPH+3HxmCFtbYtnC11C2vsTGL2cZIWxriZOrP7Igq1nA yLGKkaO0OLUsN93IYBMjMHaOSbDp7mDc89LyEKM0B4uSOO8qvTOBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWl OanFhxiZODilGhgTMrU/csyaEiCQ5mu7r5ZZWi6ub5ZErsHPaNblcxjsnrE9K/7G/UPG+UFA E/PkM52MS1fNPRNd7md3uIO5wOPDF1/D3M3fRWU5mlgOzvObfPfmS67JOfOmFLNcENNdvV+Y 5anHojsPsn98tLjIcPbgqVWrOx9e+aaxP/yucYz9QVkuKYMznhxKLMUZiYZazEXFiQBV/Ml7 awIAAA== Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin 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, 16 Jul 2013 21:24:05 -0000 --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Draft cut-off was yesterday. Agenda gets uploaded tomorrow. Last call for= slots. If you need a slot, please see the email below. Thanks! Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:06 AM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, The agenda for Berlin can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/ Important dates can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-= 2013.html#IETF87 Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for both= =9600 and other drafts. I've only gotten one slot request so far=85 If you need a slot, please see the email below. Thanks! Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03 AM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, It's that time again. The draft agenda for Berlin is out. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/ As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:30. = (90 minutes) If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, please reply = to this email (subject intact) completing the form below: - topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking): - draft URL (e.g., http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth= -oam-iwk/): - brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed and re= solved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and get = direction from the WG): - requested duration (norm is 10 min): - speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME): Thanks! Dave --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All, 
Draft cut-off was yesterday.  Agenda gets uploaded tomorrow. &nbs= p;Last call for slots.
If you need a slot, please see the email below.

Thanks!
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:06 = AM
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Sl= ot Requests - Berlin

Hi All,
The agenda for Berlin can be found at:

Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for= both =9600 and other drafts.

I've only gotten one slot request so far=85

If you need a slot, please see the email below.

Thanks!
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03= AM
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests= - Berlin


Hi All,

It's that time again.  The draft agenda for Berlin is out.

As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:= 30.  (90 minutes)


If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, pleas= e reply to this email (subject intact) completing the form below:


- topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking):


- brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed a= nd resolved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and= get direction from the WG):  

- requested duration (norm is 10 min):  

- speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME):  



Thanks!
Dave
--_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6eusaamb103erics_-- From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Jul 16 11:33:57 2013 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 12AF321F964C for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02QgZ4U3NXIq for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343A321F991F for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-63.lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r6GIXect001445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:33:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r6GIXdMw028293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:33:40 -0400 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.9.230]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:33:39 -0400 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Loa Andersson , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Thread-Index: AQHOgTWnNkUgfy6vS06og9eoKnfejZlncUCA Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:33:38 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51E3B33E.7080101@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.0.121105 x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9FE4AC92FE427546B08336E04F0FB4BC@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:25:07 -0700 Cc: "pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 16 Jul 2013 18:33:57 -0000 Loa, No IPR as far as I remember about that needs to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Florin On 7/15/13 1:30 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >Authors, > >Currently draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw hangs on missing responses on >the IPR poll. > >A few days short of a month after starting the IPR poll and if my >tracking is correct (sorry if I missed someone) this is the status: > >- We have 20 listed authors >- 7 have responded to the list. >- One (Luca) has sent me a uni-directional mail. > -- Note that strictly a mail to the list is required, but I'm > not going to try to enforce that. >- I've received 2 responses form people not listed as authors - tnx! >- I still miss responses from the 12 authors listed below: > > 1. Florin Balus > 2. Jason Rusmisel > 3. Yetik Serbest > > 4. Chris Metz > 5. Jeff Sugimoto > 6. Mike Duckett > > 7. Mike Loomis > 8. Paul Doolan > 9. Prayson Pate > > 10. Vasile Radoaca > 11. Yuichiro Wada > 12. Yeongil Seo > >Can you please respond to the IPR poll (to the pwe3 mailing list) as >soon as possible. > >/Loa >document shepherd > > >On 2013-06-19 19:46, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Working Group and authors; >> >> The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group >> chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the >> publication request for this document. >> >> To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the >> document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be >> disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request >> that it is published as an RFC on the standards track. >> >> This mail starts that IPR poll. >> >> There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, >> ID #1810, ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ >> >> Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to >> draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? >> >> If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >> >> If you are listed in the authors section of this document please respond >> to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware >> of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg >> mailing list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until >> a response has been received from each author and contributor. >> >> Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please >> both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At the >> same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. >> >> If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or >> contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any >> IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> >> >> Thanks, Loa >> document shepherd > >--=20 > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From zhangmingui@huawei.com Fri Jul 19 00:46:30 2013 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 9476511E81BD for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.312, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ai2J2s9-OZqi for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9EA11E80F5 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:46:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 ATO95126; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:46:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:45:40 +0100 Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:46:23 +0100 Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.110]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:46:17 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOgS9aJp2VaYFpH0Kb4okLN4Mw+plrmEYQ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:46:16 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C720D@nkgeml508-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: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt 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, 19 Jul 2013 07:46:30 -0000 RGVhciBhbGwsDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGEgZHJhZnQgYWJvdXQgSUNDUCBBcHBsaWNh dGlvbiBUTFZzIGZvciBWUE4gUm91dGUgTGFiZWwgU2hhcmluZy4NCg0KVGhlIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9u IGlzIGVsYWJvcmF0ZWQgaW4gYW5vdGhlciBkcmFmdDogTGFiZWwgU2hhcmluZyBmb3IgRmFzdCBQ RSBQcm90ZWN0aW9uDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2RyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLWwzdnBuLWxh YmVsLXNoYXJpbmctMDAudHh0DQogICBFZ3Jlc3MgUEVzIGluIGEgcmVkdW5kYW50IGdyb3VwIGFs d2F5cyBhc3NpZ24gdGhlIHNhbWUgbGFiZWwgZm9yIFZQTiByb3V0ZXMgZnJvbSBhDQogICBWUkYu IFRoZXNlIGVncmVzcyBQRXMgY3JlYXRlIGEgQkdQIHZpcnR1YWwgTmV4dCBIb3AgKHZOSCkgaW4g dGhlDQogICBkb21haW4gb2YgdGhlIElQL01QTFMgYmFja2JvbmUgbmV0d29yayBhcyBhbiBhZ2Vu dCBvZiB0aGUgQ0Ugcm91dGVyLg0KICAgUHJpbWFyeSBhbmQgYmFja3VwIHR1bm5lbHMgdGVybWlu YXRlZCBhdCB0aGUgdk5IIGFyZSBzZXQgdXAgYnkgdGhlDQogICBCR1AvTVBMUyBJUCBWUE4gYmFz ZWQgb24gSUdQIEZSUi4gSWYgdGhlIHByaW1hcnkgZWdyZXNzIFBFIGZhaWxzLCB0aGUNCiAgIGJh Y2t1cCBlZ3Jlc3MgUEUgY2FuIHJlY29nbml6ZSB0aGUgInNoYXJlZCIgVlBOIHJvdXRlIGxhYmVs IGFuZA0KICAgZGVsaXZlciB0aGUgZmFpbHVyZSBhZmZlY3RlZCBwYWNrZXRzIGFjY29yZGluZ2x5 Lg0KDQogICBFZ3Jlc3MgUEVzIGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIFJlZHVuZGFudCBHcm91cCB1dGlsaXplIHRo ZSBJQ0NQDQogICBjb25uZWN0aW9uIHRvIG5lZ290aWF0ZSB0aGUgIlZQTiByb3V0ZSBsYWJlbCIg YW5kIHRoZSAiQkdQIG5leHQgaG9wIg0KICAgZm9yIGVhY2ggVlBOLg0KDQpDb21tZW50cyBhcmUg d2VsY29tZS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCk1pbmd1aQ0KDQo+LS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0t LS0NCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLXB3ZTMtaWNjcC1sYWJlbC1z aGFyaW5nLTAwLnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBNaW5ndWkg WmhhbmcgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpGaWxlbmFtZToJIGRy YWZ0LXpoYW5nLXB3ZTMtaWNjcC1sYWJlbC1zaGFyaW5nDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJIDAwDQpUaXRsZToJ CSBJQ0NQIEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIFRMVnMgZm9yIFZQTiBSb3V0ZSBMYWJlbCBTaGFyaW5nDQpDcmVh dGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMy0wNy0xMg0KR3JvdXA6CQkgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpO dW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6IDExDQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLXB3ZTMtaWNjcC1sYWJlbC1zaGFyaW5nLTAwLnR4 dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0 LXpoYW5nLXB3ZTMtaWNjcC1sYWJlbC1zaGFyaW5nDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLXB3ZTMtaWNjcC1sYWJlbC1zaGFyaW5nLTAw DQoNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRlZmluZXMgVExWcyB1bmRlciBJbnRl ci1DaGFzc2lzIENvbW11bmljYXRpb24gUHJvdG9jb2wNCiAgIChJQ0NQKSB0byBpbmNsdWRlIGEg bmV3IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uOiBMYWJlbCBTaGFyaW5nIGZvciBGYXN0IFBFDQogICBQcm90ZWN0aW9u LiBFZ3Jlc3MgUEVzIGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIFJlZHVuZGFudCBHcm91cCB1dGlsaXplIHRoZSBJQ0NQ DQogICBjb25uZWN0aW9uIHRvIG5lZ290aWF0ZSB0aGUgIlZQTiByb3V0ZSBsYWJlbCIgYW5kIHRo ZSAiQkdQIG5leHQgaG9wIg0KICAgZm9yIGVhY2ggVlBOLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgDQoNCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg== From amalis@gmail.com Fri Jul 19 05:19:37 2013 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 D004111E8110 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcff3BHcJgaS for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B42C11E810E for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 16so5134627obc.26 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=dV7AKDzJzbVUQWrxBA5IuES1ogLrwPKi/XNCDeN/e68=; b=lEGjzMCSVhNB50LEB7NN6biGhFBlxbF3fTnrYhcWS8wkN53KWadfthloXuf9eBWPj/ GYFdqLEsB5sG9Xit05bxSoG/+iBhN62nvYc0kvzkFyf3vrirxJbUVIttwqaStuNhKiwJ GIav1yHYq9gBprYfRGsLBinrRhhUH06fiPosevEkP1elu5uxj/yJURWZahem0gBwbzGu d/8XwWDPWAuX/e/LJ8vrPN5sqs5Nc8PU2vtHLuPD6SrOp69s1jFQNUF01s4+WGqSpv5F BIkLiAUXmKtQkcmSQ7rySRTvpdqxLoxoG20VJuYBpNjRRZn7JjqeVhyRjfUTux2wp8d9 g3eQ== X-Received: by 10.182.105.99 with SMTP id gl3mr12011842obb.94.1374236375787; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.131.195 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:19:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:19:15 -0400 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2545c044e2d04e1dc57ba Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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, 19 Jul 2013 12:19:37 -0000 --e89a8ff2545c044e2d04e1dc57ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 PWE3ers, This begins a three-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11. The last call is extended by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting. Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for additional IPR that may apply to this draft. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. Thanks, Andy --e89a8ff2545c044e2d04e1dc57ba Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PWE3ers,

This begins a three-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . T= he last call is extended
by a week since it would otherwise end during = the IETF meeting.

Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and
= including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the <= br>draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that
applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for = more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/= , so we are only looking for
additional IPR that may apply to this draft.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013.

Thanks,
Andy

--e89a8ff2545c044e2d04e1dc57ba-- From amalis@gmail.com Fri Jul 19 05:51:28 2013 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 7EDB111E8120 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ypXhRxcV-ZRv for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940F411E8117 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ef5so5312736obb.15 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) 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=4stZa2VsBHkz1kbPIVreAgH3Q6pC30dDGgZiSr4HZgc=; b=Kif+eaaN7UEcsTrObMO7qLY8BbYbspiTDAUR51+Y52nyvOvxNfE0qVx68F7H5Oq7H7 1ucv6d4xNohP5pnBLvQ9cVOBQdKgR9caPxG0CiC+oyTp5WVSjo93PulSRYpP/EElTvN9 U6h8ZAzmO8NizPSaZ9cs/zfptI6Ym3lWNMU86XpQMaAN2PbSQ0amLwyZ3hBh8aDG9gKN sPqu1Z16WxUwXCCKZFWDM5w/w12ofq4egqRvGu/HJnINpe7ubNRsnGXk37S1SndjZArX F0/A2My/6Eg/qUgL+iUCGBLg8Tq+dVQyt2/GXoRaDi4EqnO8Cj8bCt+349RLklSa3ADa WyRw== X-Received: by 10.60.94.210 with SMTP id de18mr17584344oeb.100.1374238287191; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.131.195 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 05:51:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:07 -0400 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0117689df1e5dd04e1dcc827 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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, 19 Jul 2013 12:51:28 -0000 --089e0117689df1e5dd04e1dcc827 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All, I was just told that if you click on the link in my previous email, you get the wrong draft, unless you're reading it as text-only. Anyway, here's the correct link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Sorry about that. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > PWE3ers, > > This begins a three-week working group last call for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11. The last call is extended > by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting. > > Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and > including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the > draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication, > even if you don't have other comments. > > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that > applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 > for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for > additional IPR that may apply to this draft. > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The > drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been > received from each author and contributor. > > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF > rules. > > This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. > > Thanks, > Andy > > --089e0117689df1e5dd04e1dcc827 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

I was just told that if you click on the = link in my previous email, you get the wrong draft, unless you're readi= ng it as text-only. Anyway, here's the correct link:

https://tools.ietf.org= /html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11

Sorry about that.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:19= AM, Andrew G. Malis <amalis@gmail.com> wrote:
PWE3ers,

This begins a three-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . T= he last call is extended
by a week since it would otherwise end during = the IETF meeting.

Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and
= including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the <= br>draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that
applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for = more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at
https://datatracker.= ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for
additional IPR that may apply to this draft.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013.

Thanks,
Andy


--089e0117689df1e5dd04e1dcc827-- From agmalis@gmail.com Fri Jul 19 08:20:24 2013 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 6506D21F9EA3; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ap-Yv49K2Ei; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26CD11E82B3; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z11so661707wgg.5 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:20:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 :cc:content-type; bh=sjmvat08ZafOSqzBFamY3CqLovCR5XyMIXAz3RDiHMk=; b=si/crtw6NZrrt18fMHFCVKiIGSa8IQeFYtOKtkM3FnArdtgN1QDuY/u0OfgHMZ0rB7 ZybiVflCh0nbZZmHqvhfrRpy/6DQwkHJqSReShsZAM524oQlGi2Yrx4DMto8BB8qvSIK RxXBdWJ0Q3Sj3fjdXnWjFCYJRGd3YVnpppfCpSBEfHcNr+XJPZzre+sBGzwE+UqHslet rTbuZW8CPZYN5n0B7zcMpFUhVWrebdqkHwvb5tgclII8H5pg40bAvotiwfdKl+EiFABZ B5Tf9PZs+2aLMHXV0i3AlyQRrvgjxAEIj+nNd8J5oipar/1rv6N0rXJ7up1LKBHPlHXF BTlA== X-Received: by 10.180.20.228 with SMTP id q4mr23143446wie.60.1374247217705; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:20:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.234.3 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C720D@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C720D@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:19:57 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mingui Zhang Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042184853eba4a04e1dedd29 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , L3VPN list Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt 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, 19 Jul 2013 15:20:24 -0000 --f46d042184853eba4a04e1dedd29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All, Just to elaborate, there are two related drafts on this topic, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt. Comments should probably go to both the l3vpn and pwe3 lists for now. Mingui will have a presentation on these drafts in both the l3vpn and pwe3 sessions in Berlin. Thanks, Andy On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Mingui Zhang wrote: > Dear all, > > We have submitted a draft about ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label > Sharing. > > The application is elaborated in another draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE > Protection > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt > Egress PEs in a redundant group always assign the same label for VPN > routes from a > VRF. These egress PEs create a BGP virtual Next Hop (vNH) in the > domain of the IP/MPLS backbone network as an agent of the CE router. > Primary and backup tunnels terminated at the vNH are set up by the > BGP/MPLS IP VPN based on IGP FRR. If the primary egress PE fails, the > backup egress PE can recognize the "shared" VPN route label and > deliver the failure affected packets accordingly. > > Egress PEs in the same Redundant Group utilize the ICCP > connection to negotiate the "VPN route label" and the "BGP next hop" > for each VPN. > > Comments are welcome. > > Regards, > Mingui > > >-----Original Message----- > > A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Mingui Zhang and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing > Revision: 00 > Title: ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing > Creation date: 2013-07-12 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 11 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00 > > > Abstract: > This document defines TLVs under Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol > (ICCP) to include a new application: Label Sharing for Fast PE > Protection. Egress PEs in the same Redundant Group utilize the ICCP > connection to negotiate the "VPN route label" and the "BGP next hop" > for each VPN. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > --f46d042184853eba4a04e1dedd29 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

Just to elaborate, there are two related = drafts on this topic, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l= 3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt and http://= www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt= . Comments should probably go to both the l3vpn and pwe3 lists for now.
Mingui will have a presentation on these drafts in both the = l3vpn and pwe3 sessions in Berlin.

Thanks,
Andy<= /div>


On Fri, = Jul 19, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>= wrote:
Dear all,

We have submitted a draft about ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label S= haring.

The application is elaborated in another draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE P= rotection
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.= txt
=A0 =A0Egress PEs in a redundant group always assign the same label for VPN= routes from a
=A0 =A0VRF. These egress PEs create a BGP virtual Next Hop (vNH) in the
=A0 =A0domain of the IP/MPLS backbone network as an agent of the CE router.=
=A0 =A0Primary and backup tunnels terminated at the vNH are set up by the =A0 =A0BGP/MPLS IP VPN based on IGP FRR. If the primary egress PE fails, th= e
=A0 =A0backup egress PE can recognize the "shared" VPN route labe= l and
=A0 =A0deliver the failure affected packets accordingly.

=A0 =A0Egress PEs in the same Redundant Group utilize the ICCP
=A0 =A0connection to negotiate the "VPN route label" and the &quo= t;BGP next hop"
=A0 =A0for each VPN.

Comments are welcome.

Regards,
Mingui

>-----Original Message-----

A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mingui Zhang and posted to the IETF repo= sitory.

Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A000
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharin= g
Creation date: =A0 2013-07-12
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 11
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.i= etf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.o= rg/doc/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/dr= aft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00


Abstract:
=A0 =A0This document defines TLVs under Inter-Chassis Communication Protoco= l
=A0 =A0(ICCP) to include a new application: Label Sharing for Fast PE
=A0 =A0Protection. Egress PEs in the same Redundant Group utilize the ICCP<= br> =A0 =A0connection to negotiate the "VPN route label" and the &quo= t;BGP next hop"
=A0 =A0for each VPN.




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

--f46d042184853eba4a04e1dedd29-- From yshen@juniper.net Fri Jul 19 08:51:58 2013 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 7916821E80D4 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gAXybQBgNgdV for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577D821E80D9 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail15-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.249) by CO9EHSOBE030.bigfish.com (10.236.130.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:41 +0000 Received: from mail15-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail15-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23C84C00B2 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.51; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -24 X-BigFish: VPS-24(zz9371I936eI542I4015Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah1de097h1de096h8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h93fhd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail15-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.51; envelope-from=yshen@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ; X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.245.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT Received: from mail15-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail15-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 137424909943830_31535; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.236]) by mail15-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E1326004A for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.224.51) by CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.236.130.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:38 +0000 Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMF03-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:38 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:51:37 -0700 Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.249) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:04:45 -0700 Received: from mail173-db9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.226) by DB9EHSOBE032.bigfish.com (10.174.14.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:35 +0000 Received: from mail173-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail173-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBBE8004A for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail173-db9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail173-db9 (MessageSwitch) id 1374249093382716_26164; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB9EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.246]) by mail173-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3CE46005F for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.197) by DB9EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.174.14.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:32 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0511MB420.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.87]) by CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.159.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0329.000; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:30 +0000 From: Yimin Shen To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHOdnOnwZg3R+1v0k6JUZYi3rA7MZlsQFUg Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:29 +0000 Message-ID: <7CB1BB19ED42A343BAA380CE0AEDAD0A3F300B52@CH1PRD0511MB420.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-04.txt 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, 19 Jul 2013 15:51:58 -0000 SGksDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGEgbmV3IHJldmlzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSAiUFcgRW5kcG9p bnQgRmFzdCBGYWlsdXJlIFByb3RlY3Rpb24iIGRyYWZ0LiBUaGUgbWFpbiBjaGFuZ2UgaW4gdGhp cyByZXZpc2lvbiBpcyB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiBhbiAiRWdyZXNzIFByb3RlY3Rpb24gQ2Fw YWJpbGl0eSBUTFYiIHRoYXQgYSBwcm90ZWN0b3IgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlcyB0byBhbm5vdW5jZSBpdHMg Y2FwYWJpbGl0eS4gDQoNClBsZWFzZSByZXZpZXcgdGhpcyBjaGFuZ2UgYW5kIHRoZSBsYXRlc3Qg ZHJhZnQsIGFuZCBwcm92aWRlIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMuIFdlIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdCBhIHRpbWUg c2xvdCB0byBwcmVzZW50IGl0IGluIEJlcmxpbi4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQotWWltaW4gU2hlbg0K DQpKdW5pcGVyIE5ldHdvcmtzDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJv bTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYu b3JnXSANClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgSnVseSAwMSwgMjAxMyAxMTo1NiBBTQ0KVG86IFJhaHVsIEFn Z2Fyd2FsOyBXaW0gSGVuZGVyaWNreDsgWWltaW4gU2hlbg0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24g Tm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1zaGVuLXB3ZTMtZW5kcG9pbnQtZmFzdC1wcm90ZWN0aW9u LTA0LnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1zaGVuLXB3ZTMtZW5kcG9p bnQtZmFzdC1wcm90ZWN0aW9uLTA0LnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRl ZCBieSBZaW1pbiBTaGVuIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KRmls ZW5hbWU6CSBkcmFmdC1zaGVuLXB3ZTMtZW5kcG9pbnQtZmFzdC1wcm90ZWN0aW9uDQpSZXZpc2lv bjoJIDA0DQpUaXRsZToJCSBQVyBFbmRwb2ludCBGYXN0IEZhaWx1cmUgUHJvdGVjdGlvbg0KQ3Jl YXRpb24gZGF0ZToJIDIwMTMtMDctMDENCkdyb3VwOgkJIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0K TnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAyOA0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3Jn L2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1zaGVuLXB3ZTMtZW5kcG9pbnQtZmFzdC1wcm90ZWN0aW9u LTA0LnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9j L2RyYWZ0LXNoZW4tcHdlMy1lbmRwb2ludC1mYXN0LXByb3RlY3Rpb24NCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAg ICAgaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtc2hlbi1wd2UzLWVuZHBvaW50LWZh c3QtcHJvdGVjdGlvbi0wNA0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3Jm Y2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1zaGVuLXB3ZTMtZW5kcG9pbnQtZmFzdC1wcm90ZWN0aW9uLTA0DQoN CkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZpZXMgYSBmYXN0IG1lY2hhbmlzbSBm b3IgcHJvdGVjdGluZyBwc2V1ZG93aXJlcw0KICAgKFBXcykgYWdhaW5zdCBlZ3Jlc3MgZW5kcG9p bnQgZmFpbHVyZXMsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBlZ3Jlc3MgYXR0YWNobWVudA0KICAgY2lyY3VpdCBmYWls dXJlLCBlZ3Jlc3MgUEUgZmFpbHVyZSwgbXVsdGktc2VnbWVudCBQVyB0ZXJtaW5hdGluZyBQRQ0K ICAgZmFpbHVyZSwgYW5kIG11bHRpLXNlZ21lbnQgUFcgc3dpdGNoaW5nIFBFIGZhaWx1cmUuICBE ZXNpZ25lZCBvbiB0aGUNCiAgIGJhc2lzIG9mIG11bHRpLWhvbWVkIENFLCBQVyByZWR1bmRhbmN5 LCB1cHN0cmVhbSBsYWJlbCBhc3NpZ25tZW50IGFuZA0KICAgY29udGV4dCBzcGVjaWZpYyBsYWJl bCBzd2l0Y2hpbmcsIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5pc20gZW5hYmxlcyBsb2NhbCByZXBhaXINCiAgIHRvIGJl IHBlcmZvcm1lZCBieSBhIHJvdXRlciB1cHN0cmVhbSBhZGphY2VudCB0byBhIGZhaWx1cmUuICBJ bg0KICAgcGFydGljdWxhciwgdGhlIHJvdXRlciBjYW4gcmVzdG9yZSBQVyB0cmFmZmljIGluIHRo ZSBvcmRlciBvZiB0ZW5zIG9mDQogICBtaWxsaXNlY29uZHMsIGJ5IHRyYW5zbWl0dGluZyB0aGUg dHJhZmZpYyB0byBhIHByb3RlY3RvciB0aHJvdWdoIGENCiAgIHByZS1lc3RhYmxpc2hlZCBieXBh c3MgdHVubmVsLiAgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCB0aGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGNhbiByZWR1Y2UNCiAgIHRyYWZm aWMgbG9zcyBiZWZvcmUgZ2xvYmFsIHJlcGFpciByZWFjdHMgdG8gdGhlIGZhaWx1cmUgYW5kIHRo ZQ0KICAgbmV0d29yayBjb252ZXJnZXMgb24gdGhlIHRvcG9sb2d5IGNoYW5nZXMgZHVlIHRvIHRo ZSBmYWlsdXJlLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2Vj cmV0YXJpYXQNCg0KDQoNCg== From sajassi@cisco.com Fri Jul 19 17:07:47 2013 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 7019E11E81CD for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RdTnPX6BJPeq for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCD311E80F7 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:07:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5611; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374278861; x=1375488461; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=cghaJ8sh5Io1xOLOgu7UBKv5ClbioXr7UIT6Co/oGF0=; b=J1IvlP/EsA20+nBD+/Zs/sQKZba/ij8sDDvtPtUb7Hf47nVwg6Gtu962 AQq/+8KTtfIgHEuJXZd2lCCMer85tOtbHFzGIeehKa4tpZUioIEuq2wBA ghRUQWNA0bMkbsBOC1GcLk2K/efbbIEOQu3oLXcW/vEtN1ysONuWG5wYe Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQFAHnU6VGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagkIjITVQhWi5BoFdgREWdIIkAQEBBB1uAQgRAwECCx0oERQJCAIEARIIh3YDDwELrlwNiFoEjSOBKoERIA0LBoMKbgOVdI4QhSaBNYFdgXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,705,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217";a="237185260" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2013 00:07:40 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6K07eNx018448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:07:40 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:07:40 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Thread-Index: AQHOhN0lqimrsjC6SUi0xKSMoVGrvw== Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:07:39 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B123AB9FF@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.13] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B123AB9FFxmbalnx13ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:07:47 -0000 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B123AB9FFxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andy, As a co-author of this draft, I support its WG LC. Furthermore, I am not aw= are of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed for this draft. Cheers, Ali From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:19 AM To: "pwe3@ietf.org" > Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-ic= cp-11 PWE3ers, This begins a three-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . The last call is extended by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting. Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for additional IPR that may apply to this draft. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. Thanks, Andy --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B123AB9FFxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1EF86DC5A4B0E64E902AB9A7D31EFDE0@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Andy,

As a co-author of this draft, I support its WG LC. Furthermore, I am n= ot aware of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed for this draft.

Cheers,
Ali

From: "Andrew G. Malis" &= lt;amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:19 AM=
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@i= etf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] Working group last = call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11

PWE3ers,

This begins a three-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . T= he last call is extended
by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting.

Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and
including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the <= br> draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that
applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at
https://datatracker.ietf= .org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for
additional IPR that may apply to this draft.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013.

Thanks,
Andy

 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B123AB9FFxmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From zhangmingui@huawei.com Mon Jul 22 01:05:53 2013 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 19C6721F83EF for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.364 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.765, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qjsGbVJZZazP for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9996321F8456 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVH20159; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:05:19 +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 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:04:06 +0100 Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:04:56 +0100 Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.110]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:04:49 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Thread-Index: AQHOhHpJ7CqCcv968EWx9lJBVEkDSplwVzwg Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7886@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> 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: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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, 22 Jul 2013 08:05:53 -0000 Hi, I have read the draft and support its publication Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Andrew G. Malis >Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:19 PM >To: pwe3@ietf.org >Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-i= ccp-11 > >PWE3ers, > > >This begins a three-week working group last call for >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 > . The last= call >is extended by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting= . > >Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and includi= ng >the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the draft has = been >read and agreement that it is ready for publication, even if you don't hav= e other >comments. > >Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that applies to t= his draft >to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (s= ee >RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). We are already aware of = the >disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only look= ing for >additional IPR that may apply to this draft. > >If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to th= is >email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The drafts will = not be >forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author = and >contributor. > >If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or >contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any I= PR that >has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > >This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. > >Thanks, >Andy > From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Jul 22 10:06:22 2013 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 6BD4A11E8121; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyBJ9qN+Mn01; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F4911E8145; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.53 Message-ID: <20130722165350.3424.36586.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:53:50 -0700 Cc: pwe3 mailing list , pwe3 chair , RFC Editor Subject: [PWE3] Protocol Action: 'MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08.txt) 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, 22 Jul 2013 17:06:22 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking' (draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk/ Technical Summary This document specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet Pseudowires (PWs) connected in accordance to the PWE3 architecture to realize an end-to-end emulated Ethernet service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to Ethernet PW and AC defects. Working Group Summary Solutions for mapping OAM messages related to defect notifications from attachement circuits to PWs for ATM, FR, and TDM services were specified in RFC6310. This RFC did not cover Ethernet attachment circuits because of a perception at the time that Ethernet OAM mechanisms were less widely deployed and their standardization was on-going. The WG decided to handle the Ethernet case in a separate draft. This was considered to be an important work item by the PWE3 working group, and there were a number of requests to roll this working into the draft that became RFC6310. However, ultimately the consensus was to progress the Ethernet case separately to not further delay RFC6310. The document received two working group last calls, the second as a result of IPR declaration 1781. The second WG last call resulted in the security section being improved, but no issues were raised about the IPR declaration. Document Quality Previous PW deployment surveys (see draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00) have indicated that the majority of PWs are Ethernet, and therefore standardizing the interworking of defect notifications for emulated Ethernet services is expected to be of significant interest to the IETF and the operator community in general. There are believed to be numerous implementations and deployments of Ethernet OAM mechanisms referred to in this draft, including cases where the Ethernet service is supported over PWs and where OAM interworking is used. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com). The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com). RFC Editor Note S/{E-LMI}/(E-LMI) (change bracket type) New First Paragraph for Appendix A "This Appendix is informative." From david.sinicrope@ericsson.com Mon Jul 22 12:04:43 2013 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 2645911E8112 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:04:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13hVokW5BXiU for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C175E11E8136 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fc36d0000032ea-a8-51ed823db0b7 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id ED.73.13034.D328DE15; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:04:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:04:27 -0400 From: David Sinicrope To: IETF.PWE3 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOdNnjrcBlgsO99E2H6EdkAurdrJlfQj2AgAipmYCACUcFAA== Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:04:26 +0000 Message-ID: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C1D1A87@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C08A3A6@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C1D1A87eusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK5t09tAg9cfNSz6Pm1hcWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxuwjT5gKdoZV3N28ia2BcY1XFyMnh4SAicTnQ3NZIWwxiQv3 1rOB2EICRxklDi1T6WLkArKXM0pMutjHBJJgA2pYt3EPC4gtIiAr8fr6PbAGYQFziVu7VzF3 MXIAxS0kLhyXgShxkpj0+T9YK4uAqsSLf6/YQWxeAV+Jth23wFo5BfwkZn55CHYDI9AN30+t AatnFhCXuPVkPhPEbQISS/acZ4awRSVePv4HVi8qoCexvn03VI2yxPc5j1ggevMl5n/9xgix S1Di5MwnLBMYRWYhGTsLSdksJGUQcQOJ9+fmM0PY2hLLFr6GsvUlNn45ywhhW0t8f3GEEVnN AkaOVYwcpcWpZbnpRgabGIHxc0yCTXcH456XlocYpTlYlMR5V+mdCRQSSE8sSc1OTS1ILYov Ks1JLT7EyMTBKdXAyNit0MDw7pnQ4Zfve+LXzPXfyL2zb4Jb7/uE+3++TXjJeUTrzDaulP0R VRzR3EoXYkvvXWT9etRyj3OhR0+4U1BWF3euk3bKiS+Fy2t2VVTayHxae7jU4OAKpoVOi5tO Mty9cdzsyctvG2MsZValO5/h2hN4bD7Dpp0zPhotXH7seT3fa3u3aCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAAGN osptAgAA Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin 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, 22 Jul 2013 19:04:43 -0000 --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C1D1A87eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, The slot requests I have received to date are posted in the draft agenda at= : http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/agenda/agenda-87-pwe3 Running order is subject to change at the Chairs' discretion. If you asked for a slot and I missed you, my apologies. Please resend your = request using the form below. If you need one and have not yet sent a request, please sent your requests = immediately using the form below. If you have a slot please send your slides to me for upload no later than *= * 5pm EST Berlin time on Sunday July 28, 2013. ** Missing the slide deadline may jeopardize your presentation slot. Let me know if you have questions or concerns regarding the PWE3 agenda. Thanks, Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:23 PM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, Draft cut-off was yesterday. Agenda gets uploaded tomorrow. Last call for= slots. If you need a slot, please see the email below. Thanks! Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:06 AM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, The agenda for Berlin can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/ Important dates can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-= 2013.html#IETF87 Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for both= =9600 and other drafts. I've only gotten one slot request so far=85 If you need a slot, please see the email below. Thanks! Dave From: David A Sinicrope > Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03 AM To: "IETF.PWE3" > Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests - Berlin Hi All, It's that time again. The draft agenda for Berlin is out. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/ As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:30. = (90 minutes) If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, please reply = to this email (subject intact) completing the form below: - topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking): - draft URL (e.g., http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth= -oam-iwk/): - brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed and re= solved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and get = direction from the WG): - requested duration (norm is 10 min): - speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME): Thanks! Dave --_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C1D1A87eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <3FA264DA44E1A2448F0C3BEEAA495738@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,<= /div>
The slot= requests I have received to date are posted in the draft agenda at:

Running = order is subject to change at the Chairs' discretion.

If you a= sked for a slot and I missed you, my apologies. Please resend your request = using the form below.
If you n= eed one and have not yet sent a request, please sent your requests immediat= ely using the form below.
If you h= ave a slot please send your slides to me for upload no later than ** 5pm ES= T Berlin time on Sunday July 28, 2013. **
Missing = the slide deadline may jeopardize your presentation slot.

Let me know if you have questions or con= cerns regarding the PWE3 agenda.

Thanks,
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:23 P= M
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Sl= ot Requests - Berlin

Hi All, 
Draft cut-off was yesterday.  Agenda gets uploaded tomorrow. &nbs= p;Last call for slots.
If you need a slot, please see the email below.

Thanks!
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:06 = AM
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 87 Sl= ot Requests - Berlin

Hi All,
The agenda for Berlin can be found at:

Note the single cut off date of July 15, 2013 (this coming Monday) for= both =9600 and other drafts.

I've only gotten one slot request so far=85

If you need a slot, please see the email below.

Thanks!
Dave

From: David A Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com&g= t;
Date: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:03= AM
To: "IETF.PWE3" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: PWE3 IETF 87 Slot Requests= - Berlin


Hi All,

It's that time again.  The draft agenda for Berlin is out.

As of today we will be meeting on Thursday August 1 from 17:00 =96 18:= 30.  (90 minutes)


If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 87 PWE3 session, pleas= e reply to this email (subject intact) completing the form below:


- topic (e.g., MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking):


- brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed a= nd resolved via the presentation (e.g., need to address security issues and= get direction from the WG):  

- requested duration (norm is 10 min):  

- speaker name (e.g., Given-name FAMILY-NAME):  



Thanks!
Dave
--_000_871EB8879748FA458598F046190628931C1D1A87eusaamb103erics_-- From zhangmingui@huawei.com Tue Jul 23 01:21:40 2013 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 8AFC521E804D; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TAMgBcdD9IVz; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC72921F9FDE; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVI33132; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:21:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:20:27 +0100 Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:21:20 +0100 Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.110]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:21:15 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: "erosen@cisco.com" Thread-Topic: FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOhu2m99aNIcBiiE+hzMF4FJ/BvJlx4VuQ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:21:14 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7B0C@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: Your message of Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:46:23 -0000. <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C721B@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <27326.1374505776@erosen-linux> In-Reply-To: <27326.1374505776@erosen-linux> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt 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, 23 Jul 2013 08:21:40 -0000 Hi Eric, Please see my response in-line below. I add the pwe3 mailing list since this document is related to the following= draft submitted for pwe3. ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.= txt Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:10 PM >To: Mingui Zhang >Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org; erosen@cisco.com >Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for >draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt > > >As far as I can tell, your scheme only handles the case where the two egre= ss >PEs connect to the exact same set of CEs. If so, this applicability >restriction should be clearly stated. > >In Figure 2.1, you show CE2 connected to PE3 and PE4. Now suppose we also >have CE4 connected to PE3 and PE5. If PE3 fails, one might want use PE4 a= s >a backup for CE2, while using PE5 as a backup for CE4. Your scheme doesn'= t >seem to handle this. Not exactly. If PE3 and PE4 allocate (1100, vNH1) for CE2 while PE3 and PE5 allocate (11= 01, vNH2) for CE4. The scheme works well. This also answers your first ques= tion. > >Also, even in the case of Figure 2.1, it seems entirely possibly that one >might want PE3's primary route to CE2 to be via the directly attached >interface, while wanting PE4's primary route to CE2 to be via PE3. Does >your scheme handle this case? Interesting point.=20 Yes, it handles. Please see the right part of eq1: Sxy3+M. If the backup tu= nnel goes through Pxy->PE4->PE3->vNH, then Sxy3+M < =3D Sxy4+S. That means = eq1 does not hold. From zhangmingui@huawei.com Tue Jul 23 01:38:51 2013 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 3221111E813D; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mmdgz5CPntY7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114D611E8103; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:38:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 AVI35046; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:38:42 +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 14.1.323.7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:38:11 +0100 Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:38:20 +0100 Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.110]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:38:13 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "Nagendra Kumar (naikumar)" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOhHOpfQte+N5R0U+LUwKBoxU1zJlwBeKAgACErgCAAO67EA== Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:38:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7B38@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C77FA@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt 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, 23 Jul 2013 08:38:51 -0000 The "shared label" does not equal to "global label". It is still a local la= bel allocated by each PE. Yes, the context label has been adopted. But it does not mean protection ap= proaches based on it have been adopted.=20 I agree with your point that there is always pros/cons of each solution. Co= existence may be not unacceptable. I add the pwe3 mailing list since this document is related to the following= draft submitted for pwe3. ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.= txt Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:54 AM >To: Mingui Zhang; Nagendra Kumar (naikumar); l3vpn@ietf.org >Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-= 00.txt > >There is always pros/cons of each solution but when the global label was >discussed in the past in L3VPN because it was less flexible compared to >current available approaches which have been adopted successfully. > >On 22/07/13 07:58, "Mingui Zhang" wrote: > >>Hi Wim, >> >>There should be alternative methods. But this document tries to provide a >>simple one. >> >>For example, >>a. It does not require multiple label spaces. >>b. It need not store context label tables repeatedly on each RG member. >>c. It does not changes the forwarding process. >>d. It does not bear the restriction of no penultimate-hop-popping. >> >>Thanks, >>Mingui >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] >>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 7:32 PM >>>To: Mingui Zhang; Nagendra Kumar (naikumar); l3vpn@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: New Version Notification for >>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>> >>>What you are trying to achieve can be done with Ctxt labels using locall= y >>>assigned labels. So no need for global labels. >>> >>>On 19/07/13 11:01, "Mingui Zhang" wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Nagendra, >>>> >>>>It can also be automatically negotiated through signaling among those >>>>egress PEs. I have composed the following draft for this point. >>>>ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing - Mingui ZHANG >>>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Mingui >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com] >>>>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:55 PM >>>>>To: Mingui Zhang; l3vpn@ietf.org >>>>>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>>>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>Thanks. Is the proposal is to manually assign/configure in each PE?. >>>>> >>>>>-Nagendra >>>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Mingui Zhang [mailto:zhangmingui@huawei.com] >>>>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 2:21 PM >>>>>To: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar); l3vpn@ietf.org >>>>>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>>>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>>> >>>>>Hi Nagendra, >>>>> >>>>>In the method, the egress PEs in the RG have to use the same VPN route >>>>>label >>>>>for one VPN site (e.g., 1100 for VPN1). >>>>>As for the prefix, all prefixes (e.g., 10.1.1.0/24) learnt from this >>>>>VPN >>>>>site will be >>>>>stored in the corresponding VRF (e.g., VPN1' VPN instance) identified >>>>>by >>>>>the VPN >>>>>route label. >>>>> >>>>>I guess you propose to share the label "per-prefix". It's possible to >>>>>do >>>>>so but not >>>>>as common as the "per-VRF" assignment in current practice. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>Mingui >>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com] >>>>>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:15 PM >>>>>>To: Mingui Zhang; l3vpn@ietf.org >>>>>>Subject: RE: New Version Notification for >>>>>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Mingui, >>>>>> >>>>>>I couldn=B9t see any point mentioned in this draft on how egress PEs >>>>>>will >>>>>>assign same VPN label for the prefix. >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you please share the same?. Sorry, if I am missing something in >>>>>>the >>>>>>doc. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>nagendra >>>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f >>>>>>Of Mingui Zhang >>>>>>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:16 PM >>>>>>To: l3vpn@ietf.org >>>>>>Subject: FW: New Version Notification for >>>>>>draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>>>> >>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>>We have submitted a new draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection. >>>>>> >>>>>> This draft designs a simple method to be used by SPs to achieve >>>>>>fast >>>>>>PE protection, utilizing the deployment of redundant egress PEs. >>>>>> >>>>>>Comments are welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>Mingui >>>>>> >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>>A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt >>>>>>has been successfully submitted by Mingui Zhang and posted to the IET= F >>>>>>repository. >>>>>> >>>>>>Filename: draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing >>>>>>Revision: 00 >>>>>>Title: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection >>>>>>Creation date: 2013-07-12 >>>>>>Group: Individual Submission >>>>>>Number of pages: 12 >>>>>>URL: >>>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-0= 0 >>>>>>. >>>>>>txt >>>>>>Status: >>>>>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing >>>>>>Htmlized: >>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Abstract: >>>>>> This document describes a method to be used by Service Providers t= o >>>>>> provide fast protection of VPN connections for a CE. Egress PEs in >>>>>>a >>>>>> redundant group always assign the same label for VPN routes from a >>>>>> VRF. These egress PEs create a BGP virtual Next Hop (vNH) in the >>>>>> domain of the IP/MPLS backbone network as an agent of the CE >>>>>>router. >>>>>> Primary and backup tunnels terminated at the vNH are set up by the >>>>>> BGP/MPLS IP VPN based on IGP FRR. If the primary egress PE fails, >>>>>>the >>>>>> backup egress PEs can recognize the "shared" VPN route label and >>>>>> deliver the failure affected packets accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The IETF Secretariat >> From erosen@cisco.com Tue Jul 23 07:42:34 2013 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 C121411E824E; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:42:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNpInx1GxhwV; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210EF11E8254; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1545; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374590546; x=1375800146; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:reply-to:date:message-id; bh=MWsxQX7dKKRU+O8n32ACbLTjC5MqGq0VkdxdNl9E1/w=; b=YrsZ9yYvLSteN8YMHOC7LZb3UYP7v8Bm5dtPel4rafIWXmFek1GoqU7k UsKQzFzRDSSoujwddaEDp6ewV4MvJ7yFMiT78Reey2UGFjKe/dKBecp9w lRgriV/YM5EKhPL40P1vHTAUN84+EGb9enVFlAD2CGMAeIJCmORi73eRr k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,728,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="238330755" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2013 14:42:24 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6NEgMON008544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:42:23 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6NEgLHl003087; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:42:21 -0400 From: Eric Rosen To: Mingui Zhang In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:21:14 -0000. <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7B0C@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:42:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3086.1374590541@erosen-linux> Cc: erosen@cisco.com, "pwe3@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:42:34 -0000 Eric> In Figure 2.1, you show CE2 connected to PE3 and PE4. Now suppose we also Eric> have CE4 connected to PE3 and PE5. If PE3 fails, one might want use PE4 as Eric> a backup for CE2, while using PE5 as a backup for CE4. Your scheme doesn't Eric> seem to handle this. Mingui> If PE3 and PE4 allocate (1100, vNH1) for CE2 while PE3 and PE5 Mingui> allocate (1101, vNH2) for CE4. The scheme works well. Are you now suggesting to allocate a vNH address and shared label for every CE? Since there are many more CEs than PEs, that would make the scaling properties of the scheme a lot less favorable. Eric> Also, even in the case of Figure 2.1, it seems entirely possibly that Eric> one might want PE3's primary route to CE2 to be via the directly Eric> attached interface, while wanting PE4's primary route to CE2 to be via Eric> PE3. Does your scheme handle this case? Mingui> Yes, it handles. Please see the right part of eq1: Sxy3+M. If the Mingui> backup tunnel goes through Pxy->PE4->PE3->vNH, then Sxy3+M < = Mingui> Sxy4+S. That means eq1 does not hold. I think that equation is based only on the IGP link costs. A service provider might use BGP LOCAL_PREF to give the PE3-->CE2 route a higher degree of preference than the PE4-->CE2 route, in which case PE4's normal route to CE2 could be via PE3, independent of the IGP link costs. Of course, PE4 will switch to the directly attached route when it learns, through IGP, that PE3 is not reachable. But in that case you might not meet the FRR goal. From ssalam@cisco.com Tue Jul 23 07:49:23 2013 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 9541011E8265 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPCMcq2x70jU for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB0111E8264 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5652; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374590957; x=1375800557; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ILjtMRCPP7ZfGND56Q8rMKbyV8NgQ9qkvN2sbcSzQ2Q=; b=T3jc4bbJeyhcy3N1Rhu5QIZIdnf/SPN38sMLeC7BSKwwwzor3VYfKQk+ biibDfQMLhVbvtrCf3sSOvOBclJioE7s4DRVvnxUJbIhp1SHZIAnRQyae 9TNiP1rm7w26c2UMTSLAZFuh2Fxl4/RsPZtxv24RtxJmBnwyn7WUy5vyL Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwFALKX7lGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagkIjITVQhWq4boFggRIWdIIkAQEBBB1uAQgRAwECCx0oERQJCAIEARIIh3YDDwELr2QNiFoEjRKBKYERIA0LBoMMbgOVdo4QhSaBNoFegXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,728,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217";a="238311719" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2013 14:49:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6NEn1iH025278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:49:01 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:49:01 -0500 From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Thread-Index: AQHOh7PEo0KLZ51uCUWKNHLkv+c3Dw== Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:48:48 +0000 Message-ID: <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91243522B@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [161.44.210.117] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91243522Bxmbalnx13ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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, 23 Jul 2013 14:49:23 -0000 --_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91243522Bxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As a coauthor of the draft, I support the WG LC. I am not aware of any related IPR that has not been already disclosed. Regards, Samer From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:19 AM To: "pwe3@ietf.org" > Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-ic= cp-11 PWE3ers, This begins a three-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . The last call is extended by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting. Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for additional IPR that may apply to this draft. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. Thanks, Andy --_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91243522Bxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <151840066EB9B140856F7FD007FA1D59@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a coauthor of the draft, I support the WG LC.
I am not aware of any related IPR that has not been already disclosed.=  

Regards,
Samer
From: "Andrew G. Malis" &= lt;amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:19 AM=
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@i= etf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] Working group last = call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11

PWE3ers,

This begins a three-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . T= he last call is extended
by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting.

Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and
including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the <= br> draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that
applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at
https://datatracker.ietf= .org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for
additional IPR that may apply to this draft.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013.

Thanks,
Andy

 --_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91243522Bxmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Tue Jul 23 06:06:14 2013 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 8184A21E8050 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y74OjBf2lNWD for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2669B21E8051 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:06:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: pwe3@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.53 Message-ID: <20130723130613.28175.37122.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:06:13 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:43:33 -0700 Subject: [PWE3] Milestones changed for pwe3 WG 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, 23 Jul 2013 13:06:14 -0000 Changed milestone "PWE3 WG started, organize editing teams.", set due date to May 2001 from May 2001. Changed milestone "Hold interim meeting, including discussion of priority of service-specific documents and consider pruning some deliverables", set due date to May 2001 from May 2001. Changed milestone "PW Requirements Document Last Call", set due date to July 2003 from July 2003. Changed milestone "TDM Circuit Documents Last Call", set due date to October 2003 from October 2003. Changed milestone "ATM Documents Last Call", set due date to October 2003 from October 2003. Changed milestone "Fragmentation LC", set due date to January 2004 from January 2004. Changed milestone "TDM Requirements LC", set due date to January 2004 from January 2004. Changed milestone "SONET Documents Last Call", set due date to February 2004 from February 2004. Changed milestone "TDM Documents Last Call", set due date to March 2004 from March 2004. Changed milestone "Frame Relay Documents Last Call", set due date to April 2004 from April 2004. Changed milestone "Wildcard FEC LC", set due date to May 2006 from May 2006. Changed milestone "Multi-Segment Architecture LC", set due date to July 2008 from July 2008. Changed milestone "Basic Pseudowire MIBs LC", set due date to July 2008 from July 2008. Changed milestone "PW Protection and Restoration Requirements LC", set due date to December 2008 from December 2008. Changed milestone "PW Protection and Restoration Architecture", set due date to March 2009 from March 2009. Changed milestone "Multipath PW LC", set due date to March 2009 from March 2009. Changed milestone "Generic Associated Channel Header LC", set due date to March 2009 from March 2009. Changed milestone "PW Protection and Restoration LC", set due date to July 2009 from July 2009. Changed milestone "Dynamic MS PW LC", set due date to August 2012 from August 2012, resolved as "Done", added draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw to milestone. Changed milestone "Congestion Considerations", set due date to September 2013 from December 2012, added draft-ietf-pwe3-congestion-frmwk to milestone. Changed milestone "Additional VCCV Channel Type using the GAL", set due date to June 2014 from September 2012. Changed milestone "VCCV capability negotiation for MPLS-TP OAM tools", set due date to June 2014 from September 2012, added draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv to milestone. Changed milestone "Multisegment PW MIB", set due date to June 2014 from December 2012. Changed milestone "P2MP Requirements LC", set due date to June 2014 from December 2012, added draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements to milestone. Changed milestone "Security Considerations LC", set due date to September 2014 from December 2012. Changed milestone "P2MP PW Signaling (root initiated)", set due date to September 2014 from December 2012, added draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw to milestone. Changed milestone "P2MP PW Signaling (leaf initiated)", set due date to November 2014 from December 2012. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pwe3/charter/ From zhangmingui@huawei.com Tue Jul 23 18:52:27 2013 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 2DCEB11E81CA; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:52:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T--qoCeOGOhA; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F3411E81B8; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVI99179; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:51:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:49:57 +0100 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:50:52 +0100 Received: from NKGEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.110]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:50:47 +0800 From: Mingui Zhang To: "erosen@cisco.com" Thread-Topic: FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOh7LW99aNIcBiiE+hzMF4FJ/BvJly/ZBA Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7E3A@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: Your message of Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:21:14 -0000. <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7B0C@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3086.1374590541@erosen-linux> In-Reply-To: <3086.1374590541@erosen-linux> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.175] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt 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, 24 Jul 2013 01:52:27 -0000 Hi Eric, Please see the comments in-line. Thanks, Mingui >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:42 PM >To: Mingui Zhang >Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org; erosen@cisco.com >Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for >draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt > > >Eric> In Figure 2.1, you show CE2 connected to PE3 and PE4. Now suppose w= e also >Eric> have CE4 connected to PE3 and PE5. If PE3 fails, one might want use= PE4 as >Eric> a backup for CE2, while using PE5 as a backup for CE4. Your scheme = doesn't >Eric> seem to handle this. > >Mingui> If PE3 and PE4 allocate (1100, vNH1) for CE2 while PE3 and PE5 >Mingui> allocate (1101, vNH2) for CE4. The scheme works well. > >Are you now suggesting to allocate a vNH address and shared label for ever= y >CE? Since there are many more CEs than PEs, that would make the scaling >properties of the scheme a lot less favorable. That's not true. Please search the following sentence in the draft. "Egress PEs create a vNH router in IGP to represent the set of CEs dual-hom= ed to the same egress PEs in the Service Provider's backbone." I don't think this kind of allocation bears scalability issues. > >Eric> Also, even in the case of Figure 2.1, it seems entirely possibly tha= t >Eric> one might want PE3's primary route to CE2 to be via the directly >Eric> attached interface, while wanting PE4's primary route to CE2 to be v= ia >Eric> PE3. Does your scheme handle this case? > >Mingui> Yes, it handles. Please see the right part of eq1: Sxy3+M. If the >Mingui> backup tunnel goes through Pxy->PE4->PE3->vNH, then Sxy3+M < =3D >Mingui> Sxy4+S. That means eq1 does not hold. > >I think that equation is based only on the IGP link costs. A service >provider might use BGP LOCAL_PREF to give the PE3-->CE2 route a higher >degree of preference than the PE4-->CE2 route, in which case PE4's normal >route to CE2 could be via PE3, independent of the IGP link costs. Of >course, PE4 will switch to the directly attached route when it learns, >through IGP, that PE3 is not reachable. But in that case you might not me= et >the FRR goal. To achieve the goal of protection, the draft suggested the PEs in the RG us= e routes that they learn from the CE. If the service provider insists on using the route from just one PE, he is = ready to give up the reliability that can be provided by multiple PEs. From Prayson.Pate@overturenetworks.com Wed Jul 24 04:51:12 2013 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 AF78011E8200 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RMDhOjTsCoH1 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HUB024-nj-3.exch024.serverdata.net (hub024-nj-3.exch024.serverdata.net [206.225.165.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CD711E80E0 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBX024-E1-NJ-10.exch024.domain.local ([10.240.10.60]) by HUB024-NJ-3.exch024.domain.local ([10.240.10.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:51:05 -0700 From: Prayson Pate To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "Loa Andersson" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Thread-Index: AQHOgTWnNkUgfy6vS06og9eoKnfejZlncUCAgAxUU+A= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:51:06 +0000 Message-ID: <542C49F4E8448249BA1AC54EB67ED6922412A976@mbx024-e1-nj-10.exch024.domain.local> References: <51E3B33E.7080101@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [88.128.80.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw 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, 24 Jul 2013 11:51:12 -0000 Loa, I am not aware of any needed IPR disclosures. Regards, Prayson Prayson Pate Chief Technologist Overture -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bal= us, Florin Stelian (Florin) Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:34 PM To: Loa Andersson; pwe3@ietf.org Cc: pwe3-ads@tools.ietf.org; pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw Loa, No IPR as far as I remember about that needs to be disclosed in compliance = with IETF IPR rules. Florin On 7/15/13 1:30 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >Authors, > >Currently draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw hangs on missing responses on >the IPR poll. > >A few days short of a month after starting the IPR poll and if my >tracking is correct (sorry if I missed someone) this is the status: > >- We have 20 listed authors >- 7 have responded to the list. >- One (Luca) has sent me a uni-directional mail. > -- Note that strictly a mail to the list is required, but I'm > not going to try to enforce that. >- I've received 2 responses form people not listed as authors - tnx! >- I still miss responses from the 12 authors listed below: > > 1. Florin Balus > 2. Jason Rusmisel > 3. Yetik Serbest > > 4. Chris Metz > 5. Jeff Sugimoto > 6. Mike Duckett > > 7. Mike Loomis > 8. Paul Doolan > 9. Prayson Pate > > 10. Vasile Radoaca > 11. Yuichiro Wada > 12. Yeongil Seo > >Can you please respond to the IPR poll (to the pwe3 mailing list) as >soon as possible. > >/Loa >document shepherd > > >On 2013-06-19 19:46, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Working Group and authors; >> >> The authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, the working group >> chairs and the document shepherd are working to prepare the >> publication request for this document. >> >> To prepare the shepherd write-up we need to do an IPR poll on the >> document to check whether there are more IPRs that needs to be >> disclosed before sending the document to the IESG with a request that >> it is published as an RFC on the standards track. >> >> This mail starts that IPR poll. >> >> There are 4 IPR disclosures against this document, ID #998, ID #1810, >> ID #1879 and ID #1885. It is possible to find them at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ >> >> Are you aware of any further IPR that applies to >> draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw? >> >> If so,this IPR need to be disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >> >> If you are listed in the authors section of this document please >> respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of >> any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 wg >> mailing list.* The documents will not advance to the next stage until >> a response has been received from each author and contributor. >> >> Since the authors section includes 20 names, could the authors please >> both help each other to make sure that we get all the responses. At >> the same time please check if the mail addresses ned to be updated. >> >> If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author >> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware >> of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rule= s. >> >> >> Thanks, Loa >> document shepherd > >-- > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 This email and attachments may contain privileged or confidential informati= on intended only for the addressee(s) indicated. The sender does not waive = any of its rights, privileges or protections respecting this information. I= f you are not the named addressee, an employee, or agent responsible for se= nding this message to the named addressee (or this message was received by = mistake), you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminat= e this message or any part of it. If received in error, please notify us im= mediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic fil= es of the email. Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check t= his email and any attachments for viruses. Email transmission cannot be gua= ranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, co= rrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Th= e sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any transmitted viru= ses or errors or omissions in the contents of this message. Overture Networks, Inc. 637 Davis Drive, Morrisville, NC USA 27560 www.over= turenetworks.com From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jul 26 06:56:06 2013 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 94DC321F992B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UnZvcf71hNAU for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B56621F9966 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r6QDttiU007753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:55:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r6QDthQE023904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:55:54 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.5]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:55:53 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Thread-Index: AQHOigfXSfNo0cfn90WoA24QbC9GdA== Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:52 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE183E394A32Bmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 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, 26 Jul 2013 13:56:06 -0000 --_000_CE183E394A32Bmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andy I am not aware of any IPR that has not already been disclosed. Matthew On 19/07/2013 13:19, "Andrew G. Malis" > wrote: PWE3ers, This begins a three-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . The last call is extended by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting. Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for additional IPR that may apply to this draft. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013. Thanks, Andy --_000_CE183E394A32Bmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <73D72ADECD19D44BA844437EC6E8C63F@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andy

I am not aware of any IPR that has not already been disclosed.

Matthew

On 19/07/2013 13:19, "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com> wrote:

PWE3ers,

This begins a three-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 . T= he last call is extended
by a week since it would otherwise end during the IETF meeting.

Please send comments on this draft by replying to this message and
including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the <= br> draft has been read and agreement that it is ready for publication,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of IPR that
applies to this draft to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details). We are already aware of the disclosure at
https://datatracker.ietf= .org/ipr/1898/ , so we are only looking for
additional IPR that may apply to this draft.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any additional IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This WG last call will conclude on 9 August 2013.

Thanks,
Andy

 --_000_CE183E394A32Bmatthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From wenhuafeng@huawei.com Fri Jul 26 23:01:10 2013 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 98C5E21F9D6B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:01:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.788 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OTiDDSPA9YH for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AE021F9D3A for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:01:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 ATV36739; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:01:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:00:50 +0100 Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:00:50 +0100 Received: from NKGEML503-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.145]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:00:41 +0800 From: Wenhuafeng To: Mingui Zhang , "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11 Thread-Index: AQHOhrXst3dQ9LVaekWb9rKofplCaJl4D7JQ Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:00:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7886@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C7886@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.30.158] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [PWE3] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGFu?= =?gb2312?b?ZCBJUFIgY2FsbAlmb3IJZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wd2UzLWljY3AtMTE=?= 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: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:01:10 -0000 SEksIEFMTA0KDQpJIGhhdmUgcmVhZCBpdCBhbmQgc3VwcG9ydCBpdC4NCg0KDQotLS0tLdPKvP7U rbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogcHdlMy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86cHdlMy1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIE1pbmd1aSBaaGFuZw0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTPE6jfUwjIyyNUg MTY6MDUNCsrVvP7IyzogQW5kcmV3IEcuIE1hbGlzOyBwd2UzQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBSZTog W1BXRTNdIFdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGFuZCBJUFIgY2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1wd2UzLWljY3AtMTENCg0KSGksDQoNCkkgaGF2ZSByZWFkIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBhbmQgc3VwcG9y dCBpdHMgcHVibGljYXRpb24NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KTWluZ3VpDQoNCj4tLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1l c3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPkZyb206IHB3ZTMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnB3ZTMtYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mDQo+QW5kcmV3IEcuIE1hbGlzDQo+U2VudDogRnJp ZGF5LCBKdWx5IDE5LCAyMDEzIDg6MTkgUE0NCj5UbzogcHdlM0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPlN1YmplY3Q6 IFtQV0UzXSBXb3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBhbmQgSVBSIGNhbGwgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtcHdlMy1pY2NwLTExDQo+DQo+UFdFM2VycywNCj4NCj4NCj5UaGlzIGJlZ2lucyBhIHRocmVl LXdlZWsgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9yDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHdlMy1pY2NwLTExDQo+PGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXB3ZTMtZHluYW1pYy1tcy1wdy0xNT4gIC4gVGhlIGxhc3QgY2FsbA0K PmlzIGV4dGVuZGVkIGJ5IGEgd2VlayBzaW5jZSBpdCB3b3VsZCBvdGhlcndpc2UgZW5kIGR1cmlu ZyB0aGUgSUVURiBtZWV0aW5nLg0KPg0KPlBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIHRoaXMgZHJh ZnQgYnkgcmVwbHlpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpbmNsdWRpbmcNCj50aGUgcHdlMyBs aXN0LiBUaGUgY2hhaXJzIHdvdWxkIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgaW5kaWNhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCB0aGUgZHJh ZnQgaGFzIGJlZW4NCj5yZWFkIGFuZCBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyByZWFkeSBmb3IgcHVi bGljYXRpb24sIGV2ZW4gaWYgeW91IGRvbid0IGhhdmUgb3RoZXINCj5jb21tZW50cy4NCj4NCj5D b2luY2lkZW50YWxseSwgd2UgYXJlIGFsc28gcG9sbGluZyBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIElQUiB0 aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gdGhpcyBkcmFmdA0KPnRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IElQUiBoYXMgYmVlbiBk aXNjbG9zZWQgaW4gY29tcGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIElFVEYgSVBSIHJ1bGVzIChzZWUNCj5SRkNzIDM5 NzksIDQ4NzksIDM2NjkgYW5kIDUzNzggZm9yIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscykuIFdlIGFyZSBhbHJlYWR5 IGF3YXJlIG9mIHRoZQ0KPmRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9y Zy9pcHIvMTg5OC8gLCBzbyB3ZSBhcmUgb25seSBsb29raW5nIGZvcg0KPmFkZGl0aW9uYWwgSVBS IHRoYXQgbWF5IGFwcGx5IHRvIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuDQo+DQo+SWYgeW91IGFyZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMg YSBkb2N1bWVudCBhdXRob3Igb3IgY29udHJpYnV0b3IgcGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhpcw0K PmVtYWlsIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgSVBS LiBUaGUgZHJhZnRzIHdpbGwgbm90IGJlDQo+Zm9yd2FyZGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHIHVudGlsIGEg cmVzcG9uc2UgaGFzIGJlZW4gcmVjZWl2ZWQgZnJvbSBlYWNoIGF1dGhvciBhbmQNCj5jb250cmli dXRvci4NCj4NCj5JZiB5b3UgYXJlIG9uIHRoZSBQV0UzIFdHIGVtYWlsIGxpc3QgYnV0IGFyZSBu b3QgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGFuIGF1dGhvciBvcg0KPmNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yLCB0aGVuIHBsZWFzZSBleHBs aWNpdGx5IHJlc3BvbmQgb25seSBpZiB5b3UgYXJlIGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIgdGhhdA0KPmhh cyBub3QgeWV0IGJlZW4gZGlzY2xvc2VkIGluIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNlIHdpdGggSUVURiBydWxlcy4N Cj4NCj5UaGlzIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCB3aWxsIGNvbmNsdWRlIG9uIDkgQXVndXN0IDIwMTMuDQo+ DQo+VGhhbmtzLA0KPkFuZHkNCj4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCnB3ZTMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwd2UzQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3B3ZTMNCg== From amalis@gmail.com Tue Jul 30 07:31:04 2013 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 5CC1321F9D05 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lApX28O2E3JV for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E489821F8A67 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m1so6066758oag.18 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:29:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=DIfax+SRVAhclyLvS27kgCtBn10+2uawchWszgiOsrA=; b=kkPFWFws9ULj155JxWUdiYgcWyv1hFdEBQ6U47kzqDKeruP6zR0wfp2Jej2lOQOCwR LLA4R9Nql7ucejPrwKmw7Jy25wFWmXmZ4RbcqhRqz0Rz02cPCDR9PTZf3AsCUlqnRYHU DCV1fUFccke0Fn3tkUyjio+WftqxrGHg+K7aomdY6ErF/mNPhTp3Lb1Ne9at1/072NSL HbJBBHEwleqp1OdXhPa/rhtDaO87170t6p0u0PWC9E44ELwDGTgIEYREm3Ot7r898lnW GvpNZoVbjWnDe/cnoa3WQ/zf2MvqHxIFNctOMQcp3UcHBETVW2ByCOJPmu6+VrkI3WQK hhGQ== X-Received: by 10.182.119.169 with SMTP id kv9mr7496376obb.66.1375194571566; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:29:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.131.195 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:29:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:29:11 +0200 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e74cef771204e2bb6f10 Subject: [PWE3] Updated agenda for Thursday 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, 30 Jul 2013 14:31:04 -0000 --001a11c2e74cef771204e2bb6f10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There seems to be a bug in the IETF tools that is preventing us from uploading a revised agenda for Thursday. Meanwhile, I've included it below. All slides have been received, thanks to the presenters!!!! Cheers, Andy --------- ********************************************************************** IETF 87 PWE3 - Thursday, July 12, 2013 - 17:00 - 18:30 Potsdam 3 (55/90 min allocated) ********************************************************************** Chairs: Matthew Bocci and Andy Malis Secretary: David Sinicrope (x = slide sets NOT received as of July 30 16:30 Central Europe Time) 1. 15 min - Agenda bash, WG Agenda and Status - Andy MALIS and Matthew BOCCI 2. 10 min - PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection - Yimin SHEN http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-04.txt Objectives: To present the updates in the new rev, and pursue acceptance as a WG draft. 3. 10 min - Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires - Loa ANDERSSON http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-17.txt Objectives: To present an update on the draft and explain how a non-wg document shepherd guides a standards track wg document into and through IESG review and RFC Editor editing. 4. 10 min - ICCP Application TLVs for VPN Route Label Sharing - Mingui ZHANG http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txt Objectives: Need direction from the WG on the draft. Note: This draft depends on another draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt 5. 5 min - Keyed IPv6 Tunnel - Giles HERON http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mkonstan-keyed-ip-tunnel-00 Objective: Notify the WG of the draft's existence and intent to address it in L2TPEXT (i.e., heads up) 6. 5 min - Liaison statement on clarifying Point to Multi Point (P2MP) combinations (to IETF PWE3 and MPLS WGs) - David SINICROPE https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2013-07-23-itu-t-sg-15-mpls-liaison-statement-on-clarifying-point-to-multi-point-p2mp-combinations-to-ietf-pwe3-and-mpls-wgs-attachment-1.pdf Objective: Explain request from the ITU-T SG15 and note intention to reply ********************************************************************** Overflow (Will be presented if time permits.) ********************************************************************** xx. - None currently ********************************************************************** REMOTE INFORMATION FOR THE PWE3 SESSION(S) ********************************************************************** Remote Participation Info: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html - No WebEx - Audio will be on: http://ietf87streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf876.m3u - Jabber room is "pwe3" --001a11c2e74cef771204e2bb6f10 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There seems to be a bug in the IETF tools that is preventi= ng us from uploading a revised agenda for Thursday. Meanwhile, I've inc= luded it below. All slides have been received, thanks to the presenters!!!!=

Cheers,
Andy

---------

*******************************= ***************************************
IETF 87 PWE3 - Thursday, July 12= , 2013 - 17:00 - 18:30=A0 Potsdam 3
(55/90 min allocated)
***********= ***********************************************************
Chairs: Matthew Bocci and Andy Malis
Secretary: David Sinicrope
(x = =3D slide sets NOT received as of July 30 16:30 Central Europe Time)
1. 15 min - Agenda bash, WG Agenda and Status - Andy MALIS and Matthew BOC= CI

2. 10 min - PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection - Yimin SHEN
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-04.txt=
Objectives: To present the updates in the new rev, and pursue acceptance as= a WG draft.

3. 10 min - Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowi= res - Loa ANDERSSON
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-17= .txt
Objectives: To present an update on the draft and explain how a non-wg docu= ment
shepherd guides a standards track wg document into and through IESG= review and
RFC Editor editing.

4. 10 min - ICCP Application TLVs= for VPN Route Label Sharing - Mingui ZHANG
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-label-sharing-00.txtObjectives:=A0 Need direction from the WG on the draft.
Note: This draf= t depends on another draft: Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection
h= ttp://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt

5. = 5 min - Keyed IPv6 Tunnel - Giles HERON
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mkonstan-= keyed-ip-tunnel-00
Objective: Notify the WG of the draft's existence and intent to address= it in L2TPEXT (i.e., heads up)

6. 5 min - Liaison statement on clar= ifying Point to Multi Point (P2MP) combinations (to IETF PWE3 and MPLS WGs)= - David SINICROPE
https://datatrac= ker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2013-07-23-itu-t-sg-15-mpls-liaison-= statement-on-clarifying-point-to-multi-point-p2mp-combinations-to-ietf-pwe3= -and-mpls-wgs-attachment-1.pdf
Objective: Explain request from the ITU-T SG15 and note intention to reply<= br>


************************************************************= **********
Overflow (Will be presented if time permits.)
************= **********************************************************

xx. - None currently

*******************************************= ***************************
REMOTE INFORMATION FOR THE PWE3 SESSION(S)********************************************************************** Remote Participation Info:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participatio= n.html
- No WebEx
- Audio will be on: http://ietf87streaming.dnsalias.net/i= etf/ietf876.m3u
- Jabber room is "pwe3"

--001a11c2e74cef771204e2bb6f10-- From lsmt@ietf.org Tue Jul 30 02:55:19 2013 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 6B35311E8137; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SnwG+pP2iHLt; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA1711E80D5; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:55:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Liaison Statement Management Tool To: Matthew Bocci , Andrew Malis X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.60p1 Message-ID: <20130730095514.4831.18657.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:55:14 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:07:46 -0700 Cc: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Discussion List , Stewart Bryant Subject: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement, "Liaison statement on clarifying Point to Multi Point (P2MP) combinations (to IETF PWE3 and MPLS WGs)" 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, 30 Jul 2013 09:55:21 -0000 Title: Liaison statement on clarifying Point to Multi Point (P2MP) combinat= ions (to IETF PWE3 and MPLS WGs) Submission Date: 2013-07-23 URL of the IETF Web page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1274/ Please reply by 2013-12-01 From: ITU-T SG 15 (Stephen Shew ) To: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (Matthew Bocci , Andrew Malis ) Cc: Stewart Bryant ,Adrian Farrel = ,Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Discussion List ,John Dra= ke ,Scott Mansfield Reponse Contact: = Technical Contact: = Purpose: For action Body: = Attachments: Liaison statement on clarifying Point to Multi Point (P2MP) combination= s (to IETF PWE3 and MPLS WGs) https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2013-07-23-itu-t= -sg-15-pwe3-liaison-statement-on-clarifying-point-to-multi-point-p2mp-combi= nations-to-ietf-pwe3-and-mpls-wgs-attachment-1.pdf