IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A263A0A54 for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.068
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KSJhDgpAlBFr for <5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B04E23A0922 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04TEDVeP027935 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id CD71E20AE99 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DC520AE86 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.244.16] ([10.11.244.16]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04TEDV7m017160 for <5gangip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200
To: 5gangip@ietf.org
References: <CAC8QAcceMZ=Aku=uCo83FRg3Ju1NJumMS0D7RJou1bmPA39ZSQ@mail.gmail.com> <36d5c242-30da-a9b1-d660-dc7aab717cb0@gmail.com> <b07a5769-b07a-4ed4-48cc-23d30e419c06@ninetiles.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <81b79235-1d2b-c487-5179-bac2ae5e9414@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b07a5769-b07a-4ed4-48cc-23d30e419c06@ninetiles.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/5gangip/z-HuYkMCUj50bw52Z3f0fS-Btfk>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk
X-BeenThere: 5gangip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of implications of the upcoming 5th Generation \(fixed and\) Mobile communication systems on IP protocols." <5gangip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/5gangip/>
List-Post: <mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:14:01 -0000


Le 20/05/2020 à 18:18, John Grant a écrit :

>> PPS: Administratively, one might think to rename this list to something
>> like "6GANGIP" or?  Renaming a list has been traditionally a difficult
>> task at IETF
> Well, 3GPP still has 3G in its name, so sticking with 5G should be fine.

I wonder how long can that last, for 3GPP to develop 4G, 5G, 6G...  The 
terminology really makes no sense.

When terminology makes no sense it means there are some bigger problems 
behind waiting to burst.

The sooner they change the name of 3GPP the better for 6G developments.

Maybe 'LTE' is a better term than XG, where X is a number.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email