Le 28/09/2017 à 15:07, Khaled Omar a écrit :
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,
I dont understand that - can you please repeat?
[...]
Regarding the name, I think there is a second name suggested on the
draft which is IPmix,
"IPmix" can sound good, although it can sound also like a 'soup' or
'mixture'.
Makes me also think of MMIX which is a computer architecture with a
second meaning: it means 2009 in latin numbering (the year it was
supposed to get into production, which unfortunately did not happen).
it can be used instead of IPv10 which IMHO better to identify the
packet.
It will not be possible to get a number like '10' to identify IP
packets, like 4 or 6 does. They wont give it, however hard one may try.
I think that is because there is not enough place left. At the rate of
one version every 10 years it will be quickly exhausted.
Can you please look where are these numbers defined: 4 and 6, for IP.
Alex
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
