Hi Roland, The IPmix internet draft uses a different approach which I don't recommend.
We still can take the IPv10 to the standard level and change the name prior to the announcement, a name is not a big deal. Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, many people support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part of it. Best regards, Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Roland Bless <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:43 PM To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Khaled Omar <[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) Hi Eric, On 17.09.20 at 20:43 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Khaled, > > As you may have guessed from other replies, it would HELP A LOT if you > uploaded a revised I-D taking into account the previous comments (and not > only the filename change) including those about deployment, scalability, ... > > So, I am afraid that without a revised I-D addressing those problems, the > discussion will go nowhere as we can see now on the intarea mailing list. > > As long as there is no such revised I-D, I see no point in continuing this > discussion or presenting an old version of the IPv10 draft at an IETF meeting. > > Thank you in advance for a revised I-D [1] addressing the previous comments > from a couple of years ago. Then, I am sure that this WG will review it. Besides my already expressed concerns that this proposal is technically not sound and in itself already contradicting, there has been another (later) version that already used a different name (IPmix). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipmix-01 I actually don't know why Khaled used the old IPv10 term again, but I know several cases where blogs and "press" took this for a serious "IETF" proposal, causing quite some confusion at that time. So please do NOT use the term IPv10 as it will cause lots of confusion outside the IETF. We have been there before... https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/4vhoJou8FTXJThDuRgleqDlpTT4/ So I agree that it makes no sense to discuss this even further without an updated I-D that addresses all concerns expressed so far. Regards, Roland > Regards > > -éric (and for information the responsible Area Director for intarea > WG) > > [1] and having some interns/students working on experimental code would be a > big proof that your idea does work in real life. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area <[email protected]> on behalf of "Eric Vyncke > (evyncke)" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:46 > To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]>, int-area > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > Subject: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New > Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) > > Hello Khaled, > > In your email, you refer to > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06 but may I assume that you > meant the latest 2018 version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11 > ? > > Anyway, before presenting the draft, a revised IETF draft should be > uploaded as all previous revisions are expired. > > You also have received some feedback on the mailing lists, did you > incorporate them in a revision ? > > The above steps are really the critical conditions to present a draft at > an IETF meeting. > > Regards > > -éric > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
