From: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:17 AM To: Lee Howard <[email protected]> Cc: int-area <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv10.
> After answering questions of people who send me e-mails publicly or privately > the discussion stops at this point, that’s why I keep updating the I-D to make > it more clear for other people reading the draft for the 1st time. > > If there are people who want to work on IPv10, they need to say so. There > can’t be consensus if only one or two people think a document is worth working > on. If you have received private statements of support, those people need to > send messages to the list. > > Yes, they have to send to the list but some are asking if there is a wg for > IPv10 or not. There won’t be a working group unless there are people interested in forming a working group. Lee > > > > From: Lee Howard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:08 PM > To: Khaled Omar; int-area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10. > > > What evidence do you see that there is consensus support for this? > > For an IETF document, it should get adopted by a working group (WG). If there > is no existing WG which could include this in its charter, you might need to > create a WG; Area Directors (ADs) would want to see that there was broad > support for the effort, and many people willing to work on it. I’m not an AD, > but I would question one who thought there was consensus support for IPv10. > > > > If there are people who want to work on IPv10, they need to say so. There > can’t be consensus if only one or two people think a document is worth working > on. If you have received private statemetns of support, those people need to > send messages to the list. > > > > Lee > > > > > > From: Int-area <[email protected]> on behalf of Khaled Omar > <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM > To: int-area <[email protected]> > Cc: intarea-ads <[email protected]>, intarea-chairs > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Int-area] IPv10. > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> Is IPv10 still not considered on your list of agenda, I think the discussion >> phase has passed. >> >> I would like thank everyone who participated or reviewed the IPv10 I-D, but >> still some steps of work to be done and the decision is out of my hands. >> >> I don’t know how consensus be calculated at the IETF and whom is responsible >> for its final decision, either still some work to be done for adoption or >> start publishing the I-D. >> >> Waiting for the coming meeting is not a good idea as there is a short time >> for the presentation and we may face another remote technical problem as >> occurred at IETF 98. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Khaled Omar >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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
