Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Redback Networks Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 3931

Dear Jed Lau:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol (Version 3)" (RFC3931) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on
2009-07-02 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights
Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1162/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Redback Networks Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 3931."

The IETF Secretariat

Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Redback Networks Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 4719

Dear Rahul Aggarwal:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Transport of Ethernet
Frames over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)" (RFC4719) was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2009-07-02 and has been posted on the "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1163/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"Redback Networks Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 4719."

The IETF Secretariat

I-D Action:draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values
	Author(s)       : N. McGill, C. Pignataro
	Filename        : draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2009-07-12

This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
(L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute
Value Pair (AVP) to communicate finer-grained error states for
Attachment Circuits (ACs) and Pseudowires (PWs).  It also generalizes
the Active bit and deprecates the use of the New bit in the "Circuit
Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349, RFC4454, RFC4591, and
RFC4719.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

_______________________________________________

Protocol Action: 'L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values '
   <draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt

Technical Summary

  This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version
  3 (L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status"
  Attribute Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states
  for circuits and pseudowires.

  It also generalizes the "Active" bit and deprecates the use of the
  "New" bit in the "Circuit Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349,
  RFC4454, RFC4591, and RFC4719.

Working Group Summary

  There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

Document Quality

  The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised

Re: [PWE3] HDLCPW L2TPv3 (RFC 4349): Transport of LAPD frames

[moving to <l2tpext <at> ietf.org> since the reference of RFC4349]

Javier,

As Stewart answered, LAPD would look like any other HDLC packet to an
HDLC PW. All the data (address (SAPI/TEI), control, etc) is opaque to
the HDLC PW; flags and trailing FCS are stripped, and there rest is
transported.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On 7/21/2009 12:38 PM, Javi wrote:
> Stewart Bryant escribió:
>> I am not sure how much LAPD there is still in existence.
> There are many reasons to support LAPD. For example, the accommodation 
> of legacy PSTN/ISDN terminals and/or interworking with the PSTN/ISDN
> is an important consideration with respect to NGN deployment (ITU-T Y.2012)
>> LAPD would look like any other HDLC packet to an HDLC PW.
> However, LAPD is not mentioned in RFC 4349 neither other document about 
> HDLCPW.
> Does HDLCPW support these extensions of LAPD beyond HDLC?
> 
> Javier Muñoz
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>>