What evidence do you see that there is consensus support for this? For an IETF document, it should get adopted by a working group (WG). If there is no existing WG which could include this in its charter, you might need to create a WG; Area Directors (ADs) would want to see that there was broad support for the effort, and many people willing to work on it. I’m not an AD, but I would question one who thought there was consensus support for IPv10.
If there are people who want to work on IPv10, they need to say so. There can’t be consensus if only one or two people think a document is worth working on. If you have received private statemetns of support, those people need to send messages to the list. Lee From: Int-area <[email protected]> on behalf of Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM To: int-area <[email protected]> Cc: intarea-ads <[email protected]>, intarea-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: [Int-area] IPv10. > Hi all, > > Is IPv10 still not considered on your list of agenda, I think the discussion > phase has passed. > > I would like thank everyone who participated or reviewed the IPv10 I-D, but > still some steps of work to be done and the decision is out of my hands. > > I don’t know how consensus be calculated at the IETF and whom is responsible > for its final decision, either still some work to be done for adoption or > start publishing the I-D. > > Waiting for the coming meeting is not a good idea as there is a short time for > the presentation and we may face another remote technical problem as occurred > at IETF 98. > > Best regards, > > Khaled Omar > > > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
