Hello Khaled, In your email, you refer to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06 but may I assume that you meant the latest 2018 version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11 ?
Anyway, before presenting the draft, a revised IETF draft should be uploaded as all previous revisions are expired. You also have received some feedback on the mailing lists, did you incorporate them in a revision ? The above steps are really the critical conditions to present a draft at an IETF meeting. Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 16 September 2020 at 15:20 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, int-area <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>, Fred Baker <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10 Sorry, IETF 98 Not 101 :-) -----Original Message----- From: Khaled Omar Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:12 PM To: 'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)' <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Fred Baker <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10 Hi Eric, The IPv10 I-D was presented once at IETF 101 remotely through the IntArea and there was a technical issue prevented the draft to be presented completely. >> I do not see a major difference with previous drafts. This is because of the completion of the draft, IMHO it should be reviewed and an official decision should be taken, because the problem of the depletion of the IPv4 address space still has no recent solution applied, we cannot wait too long for IPv6 which requires tranining and this occurred actually but in vain. Best regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:05 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Fred Baker <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10 Khaled, As the responsible AD for the intarea WG, I wonder why you are forwarding a V6OPS request to intarea ? Your draft has been already presented at intarea a couple of times and (I may be wrong) I do not see a major difference with previous drafts. -éric -----Original Message----- From: Int-area <[email protected]> on behalf of Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 12 September 2020 at 01:47 To: int-area <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10 FYI, just to let you know so maybe you can help with something. Best Regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Khaled Omar Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 1:42 AM To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 Hi Ron, Hope my I-D is clear for you, let me ask if we can reserve a slot for the IP-v10 I-D to be discussed during the next coming meeting so we can solve the problem that IMHO became clear for everyone even students. Good Luck, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Khaled Omar Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:56 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 Hi V6OPS WG, Is it possible to reserve a slot for the IPv10 I-D to be presented completely during the v6ops wg meeting session? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06 Best Regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: v6ops <[email protected]> On Behalf Of IETF Meeting Session Request Tool Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:52 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Fred Baker, a Chair of the v6ops working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: IPv6 Operations Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Fred Baker Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 100 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: spring lsr 6man intarea idr Key Participant Conflict: rtgwg tsvarea panrg grow tsvwg People who must be present: Fred Baker Ron Bonica Warren "Ace" Kumari Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ 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
