Hi Khaled, No. That is not how things work. Please take a look at RFC2418 for more details on how IETF working groups operate. Specifically look at Section 2.1 regarding some of the criteria for wg formation. As of now I don't see the IPv10 proposal meeting many (if any) of those criteria.
Regards Suresh On Sep 12, 2017 10:25 AM, "Khaled Omar" <[email protected]> wrote: > We can make the opposite, first creating a wg, then we will know who is > interested to work on the IPv10 I-D. > > Khaled Omar > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10. > From: Lee Howard > To: Khaled Omar > CC: int-area > > > > > From: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:17 AM > To: Lee Howard <[email protected]> > Cc: int-area <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv10. > > After answering questions of people who send me e-mails publicly or > privately the discussion stops at this point, that’s why I keep updating > the I-D to make it more clear for other people reading the draft for the 1 > st time. > > > > 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 statements of support, those > people need to send messages to the list. > > > > Yes, they have to send to the list but some are asking if there is a wg > for IPv10 or not. > > > There won’t be a working group unless there are people interested in > forming a working group. > > Lee > > > > > > *From:* Lee Howard [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:08 PM > *To:* Khaled Omar; int-area > *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] IPv10. > > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
