Le 12/09/2017 à 16:25, Khaled Omar a écrit :
We can make the opposite, first creating a wg, then we will know who is
interested to work on the IPv10 I-D.
People did something like this in the past. They were so happy to get
their WG but without clear idea what to do in it.
WGs come and go anyway.
One may even create a very ephemeral assembly, in which a few people
talk about the same thing, during few hours, and agree on next steps.
It's a very elightening experience.
Alex
Khaled Omar
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.
From: Lee Howard
To: Khaled Omar
CC: int-area
From: Khaled Omar <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:17 AM
To: Lee Howard <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: int-area <[email protected] <mailto:[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]]
*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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Khaled Omar
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date: *Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM
*To: *int-area <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc: *intarea-ads <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, intarea-chairs
<[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
