> 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.
+1, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 11:32 AM > To: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; intarea-chairs <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10) > > 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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
