Khaled, I fully support the intarea Working Group chairs' decision as the responsible AD for this WG.
As long as you do not execute the work of updating your draft (and I gave you last week the bare minimum things to do) it will not get a slot in any IETF WG. Its content has not really changed since last presentation. So, when you have a new improved draft, the WG chairs and myself will reconsider the situation. But not before. Regards -éric PS: and to be clear, I do not want any more discussion about presenting this draft on the intarea mailing list until it is vastly improved. -----Original Message----- From: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 25 September 2020 at 22:46 To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]>, Wassim Haddad <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, IPv6 Operations <[email protected]>, int-area <[email protected]>, Fred Baker <[email protected]>, Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > So, let me ask Eric if we can reserve a slot in the next meeting to present > IPv10. > > Thanks, > > Khaled Omar > Khaled, You have received significant feedback from representatives of network/cloud operators, network equipment vendors, mobile device makers, academia, SW providers and developers. We will not consider your draft for presentation until a version of your proposal responds to the different technical issues that have been pointed out. If you are interested in pursuing, please update your draft taking into account all these considerations. Running code with proven results would also help. Once you get positive support on the mailing list, we will gladly consider it for presentation at the meeting. Best regards, Juan Carlos Zuniga & Wassim Haddad (Internet Area WG Chairs) _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
