This was a suggestion, take it easy.

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET 
MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:31 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

So, you expect that we change the rules for you, or we should change them for 
everybody?

Rules have been defined by the community for a good reason.

If we change the rules for everybody, then you should expect thousands of WGs 
being created every other day, with no consensus, lot of community time lost 
and nobody paying attention to the real work, so we could shutdown IETF.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Int-area <[email protected]> en nombre de Khaled Omar 
<[email protected]> Responder a: <[email protected]>
Fecha: martes, 12 de septiembre de 2017, 22:25
Para: Lee Howard <[email protected]>
CC: int-area <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

    
    
    
    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 1st 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]]
    >
    >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 
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> 
    >
    >
    >
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Int-area mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to