From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 2 16:06:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047131ACC84; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:06:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V1F9iMaFz82t; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3261A1F63; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:06:57 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140103000657.11565.36408.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:06:57 -0800 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-04.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:06:59 -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 : VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capab= ility Advertisement Author : Greg Mirsky Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-04.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2014-01-02 Abstract: This document specifies how signaling and selection processes for Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) are modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow use of proactive Connectivity Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) over MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) PWs. This document introduces four new CV types and, to accommodate them, a new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is defined. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Jan 7 02:46:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA651ADBD2 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7WrGi8BmLkz for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E521ACC81 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07Ak6R6005443; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:06 GMT Received: from 950129200 (16.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07Ak0lU005342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:03 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:03 -0000 Message-ID: <00d201cf0b95$ac572a60$05057f20$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI5j1lAV6RGZwHu3tIjjfWWyIMjbJmkCCbw Content-Language: en-gb Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:46:18 -0000 Hi Andy, Let me speak as an individual contributor. I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards. Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that I am personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this disclosure. While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it may be hard to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in a requirements spec that I can see would be implemented) i think that the requirements necessarily drive the solutions and thus a solution is likely to be caught by this IPR. However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR covers MP2P PWs. Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the bottom of section 3.1). My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that may be encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any disclosed IPR. i think that would be a relatively minor change (although it is text that has been in the I-D for a long time). What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of a return path diminish the document? Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis > Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03 > To: pwe3@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 > > I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with > draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting ready > for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an IPR > disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR concerns > multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional return > paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06. > Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in the > draft. > > Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before > submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of the > WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the WG > would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from the > draft. > > As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I won't > take any action on the draft until at least the second week of > January. > > Thanks, > Andy > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From agmalis@gmail.com Tue Jan 7 03:03:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF9E1ADEBB for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:03:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAVOckDtSqc3 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6181ADEB1 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id w8so395093qac.11 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:03:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=6uvAtnMZW+zH3b2lnPoRLHUx/hOx+vcAxFAzM1/8KFo=; b=f7AaGtaFDbwqgKIksbx3MCVkBL8IWCTf370KJ5EZzzzKQ/i//qrwrlk0zkgCQvVSJi aTBdhRCCCHYWI/q/cJW4wwkWQ/4995tYLghLzOrya5zhBFqOKceAuK2niHLroIsYu+Wl E5T/daRhJf+vc130EgfCI/J9C4tJCPNB4J7KjQEDge13Z+VYHWB880Zzwa4ZoyVfnkm/ 0s1bRiwFYnsk3ARQG7HFiBM6IUfW88DCRGI/96C9jTCajm/DoDrnTwvZL8L5QPW2Ujob Os0jS1NvXs/w4T6EgZyIvjiSECc2zt4Y+0H63msV5vHCmTsD9lS6/po5f+NN6qDtG+3a wS+w== X-Received: by 10.224.8.72 with SMTP id g8mr188286894qag.83.1389092587637; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:03:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.166.9 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:02:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <00d201cf0b95$ac572a60$05057f20$@olddog.co.uk> References: <00d201cf0b95$ac572a60$05057f20$@olddog.co.uk> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 06:02:47 -0500 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:03:18 -0000 Adrian, Thanks! WG and draft authors, Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well): > What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of > a return path diminish the document? Any other opinions? Thanks, Andy On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Let me speak as an individual contributor. > > I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards. > > Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that I am > personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this disclosure. > > While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it may be hard > to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in a requirements spec that > I can see would be implemented) i think that the requirements necessarily drive > the solutions and thus a solution is likely to be caught by this IPR. > > However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR covers MP2P > PWs. > Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the bottom of > section 3.1). > > My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that may be > encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any disclosed IPR. i think > that would be a relatively minor change (although it is text that has been in > the I-D for a long time). > > What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of > a return path diminish the document? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis >> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03 >> To: pwe3@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 >> >> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with >> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting ready >> for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an IPR >> disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR concerns >> multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional return >> paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06. >> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in the >> draft. >> >> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before >> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of the >> WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the WG >> would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from the >> draft. >> >> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I won't >> take any action on the draft until at least the second week of >> January. >> >> Thanks, >> Andy From giheron@cisco.com Wed Jan 8 10:00:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53801AE088 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:00:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T9z0sjI9asdH for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575821ADFCA for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:00:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3508; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389204026; x=1390413626; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tf2sYPzX9oCgBqAC6HeBr4GAFPZUalR8oP/IjHcCWo4=; b=PhIFIaS4VSc7flp95nWbDD3nrdBDqayHgCNm01LyQHsDs++TZu6xFmlm S/lYM8nC4OItBT9Dlor5x+LX817LUt1eH0DF5w/R/T0SvDgfq81ppRN2n PLTMAqUgIM078OrcXwOz5vo+/o84o4JEM3b/QaWCnk3YYxJbScok+AgG8 o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAHuRzVKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgws4Vrk0gRQWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQcEAgEIEQQBAQEnByERFAkIAgQOBRuHVQMJCA2/QA2FABMEjHKBOyUzBwaDHoETBIkLg1CJUIFsh0CFGoU7gy2BaEI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,625,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="293074881" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2014 18:00:25 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s08I0PfD018840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:00:25 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.37]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:00:25 -0600 From: "Giles Heron (giheron)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 Thread-Index: AQHPABoITNsZHytT2U2ghM4fSo6V6Jp5j7OAgAAErICAAgcFgA== Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:00:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <00d201cf0b95$ac572a60$05057f20$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.207.80] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <977DA834C6C66A468D73C4B1D80F890C@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 04:02:09 -0800 Cc: "" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:00:37 -0000 I think we have consensus amongst the authors that we can remove the mentio= n of P2P and MP2P in section 3.1 - leaving any details of how to implement = the return path to solution docs. So we'll end section 3.1 with "For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY su= pport optional bidirectional connectivity between the Root PE and each Leaf= PE." does anyone object to that? Giles On 7 Jan 2014, at 11:02, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Adrian, >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > WG and draft authors, >=20 > Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well): >=20 >> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the cre= ation of >> a return path diminish the document? >=20 > Any other opinions? >=20 > Thanks, > Andy >=20 > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote= : >> Hi Andy, >>=20 >> Let me speak as an individual contributor. >>=20 >> I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards. >>=20 >> Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that I am >> personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this disclosure. >>=20 >> While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it may b= e hard >> to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in a requirements s= pec that >> I can see would be implemented) i think that the requirements necessaril= y drive >> the solutions and thus a solution is likely to be caught by this IPR. >>=20 >> However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR cov= ers MP2P >> PWs. >> Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the bottom o= f >> section 3.1). >>=20 >> My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that may = be >> encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any disclosed IPR. i = think >> that would be a relatively minor change (although it is text that has be= en in >> the I-D for a long time). >>=20 >> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the cre= ation of >> a return path diminish the document? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Adrian >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis >>> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03 >>> To: pwe3@ietf.org >>> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 >>>=20 >>> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with >>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting ready >>> for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an IPR >>> disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR concerns >>> multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional return >>> paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06. >>> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in the >>> draft. >>>=20 >>> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before >>> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of the >>> WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the WG >>> would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from the >>> draft. >>>=20 >>> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I won't >>> take any action on the draft until at least the second week of >>> January. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Andy From agmalis@gmail.com Fri Jan 10 06:13:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FA11ADF90 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:13:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mySAvjrGHqWI for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com (mail-qa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58CA1AE087 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w8so2795267qac.8 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:12:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=MbQtvkpKoupOaMzyG01mSxL1aJsfA5eSqq0Ssh4DfWo=; b=QQ4oB9kn9AmwjNLTLUCxceII67U7jc0Ov2zHcybe23heii9MMrKqEgJpK3hQaLK1Zr V0YHGqqdTnlPvcNem0EfNpMdWqWvNJ4n4A9tPUqOeBhh8FaNY+gyU4DP+pGKoRRcAAUl 0FeXu1KNbfD1M3s50ePh/GpHn+lTslFjCE7A9IziHOBwnLI8tG46oRbOCtxjKj/1tu3a KIc9xucDB9ZxP1CnBBoxPwd30ZFsPxuXNz1e72T5vg6mbJetAn5rolkg6SsG9aAQUeJD 1Ucfxd+CKKW6l76Kqcep/P+xB3jDMK8MtKaPvPqqgiR1lpzwh9hWNRZDHvTaagB/HO0k 7FaA== X-Received: by 10.224.166.70 with SMTP id l6mr7837260qay.25.1389363169310; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:12:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.120.130 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:12:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <00d201cf0b95$ac572a60$05057f20$@olddog.co.uk> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:12:29 -0500 Message-ID: To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:13:06 -0000 Not having seen any further discussion on this thread, I would like the authors to implement Giles' suggestion here. Once the new revision has been uploaded, I'll complete the process of submitting the draft to the IESG for publication. Thanks, Andy On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Giles Heron (giheron) wrote: > I think we have consensus amongst the authors that we can remove the mention of P2P and MP2P in section 3.1 - leaving any details of how to implement the return path to solution docs. > > So we'll end section 3.1 with "For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY support optional bidirectional connectivity between the Root PE and each Leaf PE." > > does anyone object to that? > > Giles > > On 7 Jan 2014, at 11:02, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Adrian, >> >> Thanks! >> >> WG and draft authors, >> >> Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well): >> >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of >>> a return path diminish the document? >> >> Any other opinions? >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Let me speak as an individual contributor. >>> >>> I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards. >>> >>> Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that I am >>> personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this disclosure. >>> >>> While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it may be hard >>> to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in a requirements spec that >>> I can see would be implemented) i think that the requirements necessarily drive >>> the solutions and thus a solution is likely to be caught by this IPR. >>> >>> However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR covers MP2P >>> PWs. >>> Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the bottom of >>> section 3.1). >>> >>> My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that may be >>> encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any disclosed IPR. i think >>> that would be a relatively minor change (although it is text that has been in >>> the I-D for a long time). >>> >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of >>> a return path diminish the document? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis >>>> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03 >>>> To: pwe3@ietf.org >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 >>>> >>>> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with >>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting ready >>>> for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an IPR >>>> disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR concerns >>>> multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional return >>>> paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06. >>>> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in the >>>> draft. >>>> >>>> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before >>>> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of the >>>> WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the WG >>>> would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from the >>>> draft. >>>> >>>> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I won't >>>> take any action on the draft until at least the second week of >>>> January. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Andy > From lizho.jin@gmail.com Thu Jan 16 18:04:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19B11ADBD4 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:04:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yT4rxAvnIb4j for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB8B1ADBD3 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id rd3so3452199pab.16 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:03:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=0m9Hj/puHQ8xITI0bFfNfFS6xyktENIPqwj4AdaVsYw=; b=BvNk/uZBRRteep7eqYwH2b/UuaKhx1+JBJT6woFi+PI9yGW1vm1v80KZxIx4MzVtEQ AIMoShASNMGwFNOCmzDNjUUc+XtRCLrVRmMKVtmZ0nsxHxQfOpvddmKco1Ld+M9zkd4P EqaJFiQtBaIMNXFURbzMC/e593W/CMuFEG9AFIlFSBLfTjb8nfl/4emob7SDMbc0KdKI XG7hwa0Gl7QWrI1y0LP15pTKT5ITKaqvAsXzYaQfFXNyHAyCu1MgGgyogKy2HgoQR1kE sVMpUTox/k/LkyuY1DjQGdQt7K0290YW/YmJo5mGy5SckcDa095QLaQxj0vDzLCM8Snn PKGA== X-Received: by 10.68.134.98 with SMTP id pj2mr13767612pbb.110.1389924237697; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from LIZHONGJ ([180.166.53.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kk1sm18373533pbd.22.2014.01.16.18.03.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:03:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Lizhong Jin" To: , Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:03:51 +0800 Message-ID: <011f01cf1328$614057a0$23c106e0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8TJ3LDaUWGBf67T/SBLOA90mQDkA== Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:04:12 -0000 Hi Giles, Andy, Hope the reply is not too late. I agree with the changes from Giles. But the "bidirectional connectivity" term may not be appropriate in this scenario. The connectivity between Root PE and each Leaf PE is P2MP + Returned P2P LSP. Could we say: "For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY support optional return path from each Leaf PE to Root PE." Regards Lizhong > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:12:29 -0500 > From: "Andrew G. Malis" > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" > Cc: "" > , > "pwe3@ietf.org" > > Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with > draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 > Message-ID: > mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Not having seen any further discussion on this thread, I would like the > authors to implement Giles' suggestion here. Once the new revision has > been uploaded, I'll complete the process of submitting the draft to the IESG > for publication. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Giles Heron (giheron) > wrote: > > I think we have consensus amongst the authors that we can remove the > mention of P2P and MP2P in section 3.1 - leaving any details of how to > implement the return path to solution docs. > > > > So we'll end section 3.1 with "For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY > support optional bidirectional connectivity between the Root PE and each > Leaf PE." > > > > does anyone object to that? > > > > Giles > > > > On 7 Jan 2014, at 11:02, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > > >> Adrian, > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> WG and draft authors, > >> > >> Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well): > >> > >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the > >>> creation of a return path diminish the document? > >> > >> Any other opinions? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andy > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel > wrote: > >>> Hi Andy, > >>> > >>> Let me speak as an individual contributor. > >>> > >>> I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards. > >>> > >>> Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that > >>> I am personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this > disclosure. > >>> > >>> While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it > >>> may be hard to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in > >>> a requirements spec that I can see would be implemented) i think > >>> that the requirements necessarily drive the solutions and thus a solution > is likely to be caught by this IPR. > >>> > >>> However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR > >>> covers MP2P PWs. > >>> Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the > >>> bottom of section 3.1). > >>> > >>> My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that > >>> may be encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any > >>> disclosed IPR. i think that would be a relatively minor change > >>> (although it is text that has been in the I-D for a long time). > >>> > >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the > >>> creation of a return path diminish the document? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Adrian > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. > >>>> Malis > >>>> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03 > >>>> To: pwe3@ietf.org > >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org > >>>> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with > >>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06 > >>>> > >>>> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with > >>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting > >>>> ready for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an > >>>> IPR disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR > >>>> concerns multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional > >>>> return paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06. > >>>> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in > >>>> the draft. > >>>> > >>>> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before > >>>> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of > >>>> the WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the > >>>> WG would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from > >>>> the draft. > >>>> > >>>> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I > >>>> won't take any action on the draft until at least the second week > >>>> of January. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Andy > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > ------------------------------ > > End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 117, Issue 5 > ************************************ From jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Mon Jan 20 03:39:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDBD1A012E for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 03:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jG7GuUtgqg1n for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 03:39:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDBF1A00E0 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 03:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BAE07854; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:39:04 +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 14.3.158.1; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:38:06 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.41) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:39:02 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.204]) by SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:38:50 +0800 From: Jiangyuanlong To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHPE/+nl6BmOpcJQ0mxsocVMvFtXJqNfiBA Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:38:50 +0000 Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68B5A6D0915@szxema506-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.76.118] 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-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:39:08 -0000 SGkgY29sbGVhZ3VlcywNCg0KV2UgaGF2ZSB1cGRhdGVkIEktRCBvZiAiIE11bHRpLWNoYXNzaXMg UE9OIFByb3RlY3Rpb24gaW4gTVBMUyAiIHRvIGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24sIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsIGNo YW5nZXMgYXJlIGludHJvZHVjZWQgaW4gdGhpcyByZXZpc2lvbiwgYW5kIEVkd2luIGpvaW5zIHRo aXMgd29yayBhcyBhIGNvLWF1dGhvci4NClBsZWFzZSByZXZpZXcgYW5kIGZlZWRiYWNrIHlvdXIg b3BpbmlvbnMuIFlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIGdyZWF0bHkgYXBwcmVjaWF0ZWQhDQoNClRoYW5r cywNCll1YW5sb25nDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGludGVy bmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQpT ZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgSmFudWFyeSAxOCwgMjAxNCAxMTo0NSBBTQ0KVG86IEx1b3lvbmcgKERl bm5pcyk7IEVkd2luIE1hbGxldHRlOyBFZHdpbiBNYWxsZXR0ZTsgSmlhbmd5dWFubG9uZzsgSmlh bmd5dWFubG9uZzsgTHVveW9uZyAoRGVubmlzKQ0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZp Y2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1qaWFuZy1wd2UzLW1jLXBvbi0wMS50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJz aW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtamlhbmctcHdlMy1tYy1wb24tMDEudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNj ZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IFl1YW5sb25nIEppYW5nIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlDQpJ RVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1qaWFuZy1wd2UzLW1jLXBvbg0KUmV2aXNp b246CTAxDQpUaXRsZToJCU11bHRpLWNoYXNzaXMgUE9OIFByb3RlY3Rpb24gaW4gTVBMUw0KRG9j dW1lbnQgZGF0ZToJMjAxNC0wMS0xOA0KR3JvdXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NClBh Z2VzOgkJMTQNClVSTDogICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRy YWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1qaWFuZy1wd2UzLW1jLXBvbi0wMS50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRw czovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1qaWFuZy1wd2UzLW1jLXBvbi8NCkh0 bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1qaWFuZy1wd2Uz LW1jLXBvbi0wMQ0KRGlmZjogICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91 cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWppYW5nLXB3ZTMtbWMtcG9uLTAxDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgTVBMUyBpcyBi ZWluZyBkZXBsb3llZCBkZWVwZXIgaW50byBvcGVyYXRvciBuZXR3b3Jrcywgb2Z0ZW4gdG8gb3IN CiAgIHBhc3QgdGhlIGFjY2VzcyBuZXR3b3JrIG5vZGUuIFNlcGFyYXRlbHkgbmV0d29yayBhY2Nl c3Mgbm9kZXMgc3VjaCBhcw0KICAgUE9OIE9MVHMgaGF2ZSBldm9sdmVkIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgZmly c3QtbWlsZSBhY2Nlc3MgcHJvdGVjdGlvbiwgd2hlcmUNCiAgIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIHBoeXNpY2Fs IE9MVHMgcHJvdmlkZSBmaXJzdC1taWxlIGRpdmVyc2l0eSB0byB0aGUNCiAgIGN1c3RvbWVyIGVk Z2UuIE11bHRpLWhvbWluZyBzdXBwb3J0IGlzIG5lZWRlZCBvbiB0aGUgTVBMUy1lbmFibGVkIFBP Tg0KICAgT0xUIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgcmVzaWxpZW5jeSBmb3IgcHJvdmlkZWQgc2VydmljZXMuICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50DQogICBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIG11bHRpLWNoYXNzaXMgUE9OIHByb3RlY3Rp b24gYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIGluIE1QTFMgYW5kDQogICBhbHNvIHByb3Bvc2VzIHRoZSBJQ0NQIGV4 dGVuc2lvbiB0byBzdXBwb3J0IGl0Lg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0K UGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhl IHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbg0KdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYg YXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQN Cg0K From agmalis@gmail.com Tue Jan 21 05:57:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563E31A0121 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:57:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l36MNI4pO66N for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:57:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C2E1A0128 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:57:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n7so7020149qcx.16 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:57:16 -0800 (PST) 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=q2yP//ymeBbXctoLE8DvNRzRboHvPOF8Fh39qfYz+nQ=; b=a4d3dU7jLn6g0DF8+xcbZxUxxyR8k388ubnTwE0Yua5McP49dsDVZ0F0rzmBeDcb9W d1nmkSdkMwFM5pPNluhTOSxkagmwas4L0iSHmW1Z2i2gmxigTILhOtV63ARvDEE18SwO zYS6kacgh40JOQ2WD7IDsFQBJ7mxBcmDZfW+YkDSxv6zE5Hzr//PpHM0chvEpK0BhN0I dnHH+G67Eg8G5FYJL6TPI7KGugC29ohUymrQ6F/fhYepE2Bx/qKBlx2iFX58qiF3hhHD JICRp5P79nAGdQlIvZDNfMJ6v4YMK3bDgoWW3UMdJW/mEeVttbrDLD8MlsqPxVUMG8ZF aIBg== X-Received: by 10.140.31.75 with SMTP id e69mr35516564qge.76.1390312635923; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:57:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.120.130 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:56:55 -0800 (PST) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:56:55 -0800 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] New affiliation X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:57:17 -0000 PWE3ers, I just wanted to let you all know that starting yesterday, I have a new affiliation, Huawei. I will continue to use this email address (agmails@gmail.com) for IETF work. Cheers, Andy From agmalis@gmail.com Tue Jan 21 07:49:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF381A018B for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-fjo8s2DtpH for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com (mail-qa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F191A01B8 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w8so6594400qac.8 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=02id2vgzP20A7zk3q9mkzCsYfjt9R1u9GIQ1G4ItCJM=; b=gDA+MPiB/Tg2EryezgAwzrZ0YBfxSt+pt6EEoT6Ahk1Yz79DiHpesZ9ptUwh/is7Rj NTDiFf9WqRivx8lSNxwnRcfKAkx1cI2/2uEnG0uO/oK53OLMw5s5QeKlCsBPu1a6rgZx uGLaKk3X5xcE1fi5mXg4qFvNhSejG29Z7cgRQ2PlVuQFkrMNyqIeUP7VfoTSV4wAP9eQ eZHYac4PvQodTryho0RA/zbLE1GJR8vOeW1Go60TeIfdUNAZfnwbPaVU4YUGZ7TzvBk8 Wy40PGbiaGRR57539xB0wL46jdxHCYpddrrnwwxkx0cv8KEA+flsK4NEh088NcJByIOs HSTg== X-Received: by 10.224.167.143 with SMTP id q15mr38299043qay.97.1390319394965; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.120.130 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:34 -0800 Message-ID: To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PWE3] New affiliation X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:49:56 -0000 It's been brought to my attention that I can't spell my own email address, agmalis@gmail.com. That's what happens when you type too fast ... :-) Cheers, Andy On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > PWE3ers, > > I just wanted to let you all know that starting yesterday, I have a > new affiliation, Huawei. I will continue to use this email address > (agmails@gmail.com) for IETF work. > > Cheers, > Andy From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 21 08:09:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7951A0348; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:09:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWtnAKrpXMrU; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5101A01A8; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:09:27 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140121160927.6030.96661.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:09:27 -0800 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-05.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:09:30 -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 : VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capab= ility Advertisement Author : Greg Mirsky Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-05.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2014-01-21 Abstract: This document specifies how signaling and selection processes for Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) are modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow use of proactive Connectivity Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) over MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) PWs. This document introduces four new CV types and, to accommodate them, a new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is defined. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 08:31:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89DE1A0008; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcWYFMrDjiId; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E701A0057; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:13 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140123163113.17305.35932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:31:13 -0800 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:31:21 -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 : VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capab= ility Advertisement Author : Greg Mirsky Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: This document specifies how signaling and selection processes for Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) are modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow use of proactive Connectivity Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) over MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) PWs. This document introduces four new CV types and, to accommodate them, a new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is defined. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 12:36:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C863A1A0197; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oB1IFOjioCia; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B008C1A013C; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:36:16 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140123203616.29172.7262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:36:16 -0800 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:36:21 -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 : Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE= Redundancy Authors : Luca Martini Samer Salam Ali Sajassi Satoru Matsushima Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt Pages : 82 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: This document specifies an inter-chassis communication protocol (ICCP) that enables Provider Edge (PE) device redundancy for Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) applications. The protocol runs within a set of two or more PEs, forming a redundancy group, for the purpose of synchronizing data amongst the systems. It accommodates multi-chassis attachment circuit as well as pseudowire redundancy mechanisms. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From david.sinicrope@ericsson.com Sun Jan 26 17:52:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7CE1A0172 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:52:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMUtv293TPai for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:52:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4424E1A015C for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:52:28 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-63-52e5bbd95bdb Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CC.75.11484.9DBB5E25; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:52:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:52:23 -0500 From: David Sinicrope To: IETF.PWE3 Thread-Topic: PWE3 IETF 89 Slot Requests - London Thread-Index: AQHPGwJsTpxCe8g9+EGpBJUOPQ0ZHg== Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 01:52:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF0BDCD51132FDdavidsinicropeericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu6t3U+DDC7MZrHo+7SFxYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGa9ap7IX/JGsePnPqIHxmlgXIyeHhICJxIabC1khbDGJC/fW s3UxcnEICRxhlNh8/D0zhLOcUeLc2xNMIFVsQB3rNu5hAbFFBGQlXl+/xwZiCwvoSLzdeQuo hgMobigx67EoRImexJQrfewgYRYBVYl/LYIgYV4BK4mX7zcyg9iMQHu/n1oDNp1ZQFzi1pP5 TBD3CEgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B/YnaJAI9e374aqUZTY1z+dHaI3XmLFin/sEPMFJU7OfMIygVF4 FpKxs5CUzUJSBhHXkViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2YY+8yBx1C91hLf7/SyI6tZwMixipGjtDi1LDfd yHATIzBKjkmwOe5gXPDJ8hCjNAeLkjjvl7fOQUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoY 518oO8T4s/BO498vTelhTvHTHP5umlnikxVYxf5A9MWp3WzF8ZlxD/M0Ez4tVUpj7rK8cUPz TskaJY6HEWFXF2+by3Om4+ePyYlMRrOlNN85JDq8DdiQej5X/GDj0h0HZHon90ZdYDj4yXrm wQl35e4E2Eic5uqym7hQ2u3V4QoZo0XODeH5SizFGYmGWsxFxYkAurOrfGACAAA= Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 IETF 89 Slot Requests - London X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 01:52:31 -0000 --_000_CF0BDCD51132FDdavidsinicropeericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, It's that time again. If you need a presentation slot for the IETF 89 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 during the meeting (e.g., need to address secu= rity issues and get direction from the WG): - requested duration (norm is 10 min): - speaker Given-name FAMILY-NAME (e.g., Dave SINICROPE): Thanks! Dave --_000_CF0BDCD51132FDdavidsinicropeericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
=
MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking):
- brief statement of objectives and issues that need to be discussed a= nd resolved via the presentation during the meeting  (e.g., need to ad= dress security issues and get direction from the WG):  
- requested duration (norm is 10 min):  
- speaker Given-name FAMILY-NAME (e.g., Dave SINICROPE):  
To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140127215940.27157.58396.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:59:40 -0800 Cc: pwe3 mailing list , pwe3 chair , RFC Editor Subject: [PWE3] Protocol Action: 'VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capability Advertisement' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06.txt) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:59:44 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capability Advertisement' (draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06.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-tp-cv-adv/ Technical Summary This document specifies how signaling and selection processes for Pseudowire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) are modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow use of proactive Connectivity Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) over MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) PWs. This document introduces four new CV types and, to accommodate them, a new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is defined. Working Group Summary This was a straightforward document as far as the WG was concern. The majority of discussion of the draft occurred while it was an individual draft, when it went though several round of comments and revisions before being adopted as a WG draft. Document Quality There are no known implementations of the draft at this time. At least one vendor has it under consideration for implementation. Personnel Andy Malis is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. IANA Note The sponsoring AD is one of the registry designated experts and supports the requested IANA allocation. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Jan 28 07:38:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABAD1A0431; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:38:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-rHwxXVaYWm; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243141A03B6; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20140128153832.4534.95526.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:38:32 -0800 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Last Call: (Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:38:33 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies an inter-chassis communication protocol (ICCP) that enables Provider Edge (PE) device redundancy for Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) applications. The protocol runs within a set of two or more PEs, forming a redundancy group, for the purpose of synchronizing data amongst the systems. It accommodates multi-chassis attachment circuit as well as pseudowire redundancy mechanisms. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/