In the past we have seen many times discussions of what can be related
to a "Next Generation Internet" proposal.
In Europe there are opportunities to build project proposals in this space.
ngi.eu
Alex
Le 04/11/2017 à 12:01, Khaled Omar a écrit :
Thanks,
Khaled Omar
*From:* Juan Carlos Zuniga [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Friday, November 3, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* Khaled Omar
*Cc:* int-area
*Subject:* RE: [Int-area] Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10)
Hello,
Indeed, the IntArea group has decided not to further discuss this draft.
Regards,
Juan Carlos
*From:*Khaled Omar [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* November 3, 2017 9:17 AM
*To:* Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* int-area <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10)
Hi,
Does this means that IPv10 will not be presented at ietf 100?
Best regards,
Khaled Omar
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10)
From: Juan Carlos Zuniga
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
CC: intarea-chairs
Hello,
The call for interest is now finished. We have not seen support to
continue the discussion in the IntArea nor we have seen interest in
creating an IETF mailing list.
Hence, we respectfully request the authors to abandon any further
discussion about the draft and the proposed solution from the
IntArea mailing list.
Best regards,
Juan Carlos, Wassim & Suresh
IntArea WG Chairs + AD
*From:*Juan Carlos Zuniga
*Sent:* October 4, 2017 11:08 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* 'Wassim Haddad' <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Suresh Krishnan
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
intarea-chairs <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10)
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.
Regards,
Juan Carlos, Wassim and Suresh
IntArea WG Chairs + AD
_______________________________________________
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
