Hi Alex, > 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. > 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 enlightening experience.
We didn't try this with IPv10 yet to have an influence regarding the participants and consensus, will be great to have an email list for this discussion. Regarding the name, I think there is a second name suggested on the draft which is IPmix, it can be used instead of IPv10 which IMHO better to identify the packet. Regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
