Hi,
I am quite strongly opposed to assign any further IETF ressources to
this work. This has gone on too long for my taste. In April (!!,
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg05634.html)
the WG has already determined that it does not want to pursue this work
any further. There has only been a single proponent, who at some point
wanted to have his text removed from the IETF servers and threatened to
even use legal actions, just to come back days later with another
version of this idea. The whole discussion around this is unfounded
claims which industry professionals have dismissed repeatedly such as
the ease of software updates to deploy this. As others have said,
interested people can go someplace else and further discuss and develop
this, but AFAICT, the IETF community as agreed to NOT pursue this
further. Please make this stop! It is one thing to be nice to newcomers,
which I believe is important, but THIS is not healthy to the community
and it is wasting a lot of people's time. Rewarding this behaviour with
additional IETF ressources will set a bad precedence in my oppinion.
Best,
Rolf
Am 05.10.17 um 05:08 schrieb Juan Carlos Zuniga:
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
