Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Khaled Omar
Hi Ted, From who I can request IPv10 mailing list? Original Message Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10. From: Ted Lemon To: Tim Chown CC: Khaled Omar ,int-area On Sep 12, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Tim Chown > wrote: I believe you can

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Ted Lemon
On Sep 12, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > I believe you can request an IETF mail list, e.g. ip...@ietf.org > to discuss your proposal. This is subject to approval from the IESG, and typically requires that (many) more than one person express

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Tim Chown
On 12 Sep 2017, at 18:39, Khaled Omar wrote: > > So in your opinion, what should happen now? Updating the I-D only? Or we > should go forward? Or the IPv10 draft is not interesting at all? I believe you can request an IETF mail list, e.g. ip...@ietf.org

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Ted Lemon
On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Khaled Omar wrote: > This means that the issue is not on the technical details, the issue is > personal that shouldn't be at the IETF because it doesn't matter from where > the author is or people looking for more things other than

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Khaled Omar
I believe that the IETF has shown no interest in working on the IPv10 draft, and so you should a: abandon it or b: consider working on it in some other standards organization. Every one can say his own opinion about IPv10 I-D, I will not ask more about a discussion or wg or

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Warren Kumari
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Khaled Omar wrote: > So in your opinion, what should happen now? Updating the I-D only? Or we > should go forward? Or the IPv10 draft is not interesting at all? I believe that the IETF has shown no interest in working on the IPv10

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Khaled Omar
So in your opinion, what should happen now? Updating the I-D only? Or we should go forward? Or the IPv10 draft is not interesting at all? -Original Message- From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:29 PM

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Respecting people and their time means that before asking once and again about changing the process for you, or the process itself, you MUST have read the process documents, which doesn’t seem to be the case. If you did that, then you don’t understand the documents, and then you need some help

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Khaled Omar
Will all the respect from my side, believe me, I’m taking it really easy and calm, but I think many of us here believe that you don't respect us, neither our work, neither our time, neither are respectful in general by continuously forwarding private emails and repeating

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
I believe everybody here is taking it very easy, but seems that some folks insist in not reading all the suggestions received and specially all the IETF documents prepared for new participants, including the ones available in every IETF meeting during the Sunday tutorials. Several of us, have

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
So, you expect that we change the rules for you, or we should change them for everybody? Rules have been defined by the community for a good reason. If we change the rules for everybody, then you should expect thousands of WGs being created every other day, with no consensus, lot of community

Re: [Int-area] IPv10.

2017-09-12 Thread Lee Howard
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