>> No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea >> from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your conclusion >> are all false.
Why it is a bad idea ?????!!!!! IPv6 requires updating and migration. IPv10 requires only updating. IPv6 took so long time. IPv10 will take short time. IPv6 is a new address structure. IPv10 is a solution only. Other transitioning techniques requires so much translations and involvement of the DNS in the communication process. IPv10 doesn't requires neither. Other transitioning techniques requires training. IPv10 requires no training. Best regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:08 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ron Bonica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:58:21PM +0000, Khaled Omar <[email protected]> wrote a message of 122 lines which said: > Most of the feedbacks I got are related to changing the draft name > from IPv10 to any other name. No, most of the feedback you received was to explain why it is a bad idea from the beginning and why your premises, your reasoning and your conclusion are all false. No need to spend meeting time on it. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
