> On Sep 28, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> wrote: > > We can call the mailing list any name that describes the solution but the > contents remains the same. > > The industry for sure will understand the new version as it is described in > details what is IPv10 and why number 10.
Not if someone else gets 10 before your proposal does (e.g., their proposal goes faster or yours doesn’t succeed). Call it ‘after6’ if that’s what you want. At least you won’t be affecting the value of 10 for others if you do not succeed. Joe > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-not-v10 > From: Ron Bonica > To: [email protected] > CC: > > > Maybe the mailing list should be named after the problem that it purports to > solve, as opposed the solution that Khaled hopes it will generate. > > After all, we have no idea whether the mailing list will generate a new > version of IP at all. > > Furthermore, giving the mailing list a name that suggests that there will be > yet another version of IP may confuse the industry. > > Ron > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
