On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The IntArea mailing list has been repeatedly used to debate > draft-omar-ipv10. So far, comments posted on the mailing list have > consistently pointed towards a highly controversial topic on multiple > levels. This includes the lack of a valid problem statement as well as a > clear and persistent disconnect between the suggested proposal in > draft-omar-ipv10 and the current market trends, deployments and available > solutions. > > > > The IntArea AD and WG chairs are not satisfied with the nature and tone of > the current exchange on the IntArea ML, nor enthusiastic about its potential > prospect within the IntArea WG. > > > > However, the IntArea AD and WG chairs would like to encourage pursuing the > discussion outside the IntArea WG if there is sufficient interest in the > topic, e.g., on a separate mailing list. For this purpose, we would like to > gauge the community interest to work on the problem statement and proposal > described in draft-omar-IPv10 (possibly to be renamed IPmix). > > > > If you are interested in participating in the work mentioned above, please > respond to this mail expressing your support by October 17, 2017. > The draft and the concept have been thoroughly discussed on int-area list (twice). I don't see that the problem is worth solving, the proposed solution is remotely feasible, or that the author is willing to apply feedback from the discussion. I am not interested in further discussions about this.
Tom _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
