Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

I think I'm going to draft 655 "versions", since IANA hasn't assigned those
versions by your reasoning that means they're fair game, I can use them if
I want to. Then I'll stop writing and to avoid confusion the IANA will be
encouraged to assign a unique number and the next version of the official
protocol will be IPv666. (Which we also won't actually need but that's ok.)

[Hmm April is coming....]

--
Clark Gaylord
cgaylord@vt.edu
... autocorrect may have improved this message ...

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 09:12 Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:

> V10 is not reserved by IANA, so there is no confusion in the name, go
> ahead all and read till the end.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:10 PM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
>
> Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> >> Is it possible to reserve a slot for the IPv10 I-D to be presented
> completely during the v6ops wg meeting session?
> >>
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06
>
> I only had a quick look, but doesn't this just re-hash
> discussions/documentation that's already been done elsewhere ?
> Also, I think calling it IPv10 is just asking to cause confusion - it
> should be rejected just for that ;-)
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>