Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.

Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818B43A0CAB; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.com
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 qRF9443HjUoM; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR06-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur06olkn2040.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.17.40]) (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 288D23A0C82; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ijPg7hYxk6O+SrpBXjNAEEHstQcABqprafg2l5DXEfr7p8oTDEjpLHuF2D18Oi+vOHdcNk6Lx0SiVbfm7jmbUEX8Kx97zqGKONebfePkyEOG4Gz5JlfaG8oqGsPp4iSqR9ESZ3f6NqtBLn25Fqo68BGEAnkkp3WmpqDVlzLGA9Jm1wgvH9hGbdsyd+XAWLfhPxa8Hd6DriH9lJ2twaw9CdE+r0XSzGriYfMFodaqZSGUcafQRI+S7zIW/j24vSJHAheyYznj3FPCRbQJKOcEuoKn74NsxAzjSclU/SWSN1pyuUtxk5ODFcslmKtqp3UlJuA92oP6l2pXbaTxTQGdSw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8PnxNS8TVKrwboklpGhIT0Rbfd6lPoekODJRFfdP6MA=; b=axhbdA4cdRzcMjFdnP0FWqs9kjByILhCaq1R33UMBwfSpEqIDajvDrYTtDT2bPPukmhE5fUFvFzez3VdjhpeT36sxM+In3nt9JjoVjoYO08BtPozBsG/LYZBKpA/Ga2rsbGdP8tWwIy4p4JgjsUlR4AyCd8HrBe4EDp2Ms0jFmeF43HQ9bvBX+ncFst30AOTkpQ3SP1mDzGBX27r07EOWssPJPIVDkB3PSOnx5hLh9I+Oy7Tol6z0s5GBR2S7ZqaGTEScIka26CDcu6tZVkZsGAMNeH2nJnagaVG7SU551FlhrUrR2JOyh76q1f2o7GT9Jy1RHll31Hhv0PaIp8eLA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8PnxNS8TVKrwboklpGhIT0Rbfd6lPoekODJRFfdP6MA=; b=iyjag8oWawMYRQQ1Cqr7Pdv7++Cd7wXIEKa7T4t7JKWCwjSNivMYr4UhunRExr8UPMsiDHCY7d7GJ/asKzNykUBqu1Nslk2geKYlWWUVi63dBRSQ76maPDEM3jf9MFB5o5tOSUKazW9wenTz5Ke9fiKqEVhzgcABQZmHch47HgDvRUQNb3LzJfb0XcSfA8spdZ6dIb9lqmncx3VgYUqXb/L0PDXHP/chQHToXlUwr2ANrKm/J9PuEjLG8Tdxu7zF/WtVqbJO0JGUnWj78t65+9QqzDumkpEk3h9M/EEbhQR6T5IsZNH3SWpnqUJRWClJeAuCtkFQuBQbiXt0Z+olTQ==
Received: from AM7EUR06FT030.eop-eur06.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc36::4e) by AM7EUR06HT198.eop-eur06.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc36::422) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.16; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:17:27 +0000
Received: from AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:fc36::45) by AM7EUR06FT030.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:fc36::329) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.16 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:17:27 +0000
Received: from AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::f8b9:eda6:885a:8b70]) by AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::f8b9:eda6:885a:8b70%9]) with mapi id 15.20.3283.015; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:17:27 +0000
From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
CC: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.
Thread-Topic: IPv10 I-D Destiny.
Thread-Index: AdZwSadmkCW8yAGVQuetrcQGh13YMwAFeBpgACAOHgAAJ9wFAP//9lbP
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <AM7P194MB072324FBAC54329F25DCA341AE430@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <AM7P194MB0723D773FCD8BAE7D9C6C9A8AE420@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <AM7P194MB0723BD2C01221F94050AE995AE420@AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8BC2E008-6A23-4F71-9A31-EAF789E44FE7@strayalpha.com>, <9D83AA0D-33B5-43DD-9D59-C6FDBE449854@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D83AA0D-33B5-43DD-9D59-C6FDBE449854@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:5CA9E5DA6526069BFEA68CE428F0589A5771F9CC60A040B1B08050DC22EF806E; UpperCasedChecksum:60FC4D0F536BBFDADC241E42C6DA84EB24AE427D9866737B555DBDA86BA00159; SizeAsReceived:7051; Count:44
x-tmn: [NDqyftPl7Sh2+UUfquXe5e196d/AyJbh]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9c3ffb86-c6e3-42b8-0c2c-08d83f939b97
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM7EUR06HT198:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:0; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:AM7P194MB0723.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM7P194MB072324FBAC54329F25DCA341AE430AM7P194MB0723EURP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: AM7EUR06FT030.eop-eur06.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9c3ffb86-c6e3-42b8-0c2c-08d83f939b97
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Aug 2020 14:17:27.5607 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM7EUR06HT198
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UPExFUX6O3sCyNSfYutWfEnM3nY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:17:37 -0000

Hi Eric,

Yes, the proposal kept changing to take the best form, the two ID names idea was made to help to reach the final stage of being a standard.

Lets make the problem clear which may help us, the concept is that one size doesn’t fits all, so consensus with this low percentage is critical alarm, can’t fight for my idea in all directions, there are many haters from the community now to this division problem, they wanna do as much support as they can but not to be a factor in the solution, they are affected as all but not their problem.

Best regards,

Khaled Omar

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 2:36:55 PM
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>; Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>; IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.


With my INT Area Director hat on:



Thank you Joe for providing the pointer to the previous email exchange.



Khaled, all efforts to improve the Internet are always welcome, but, as Joe, I would like to understand what has changed since 2017 ?



IPv6, that solves the IPv4 issues, is being more and more deployed (actually doubled from January 2017 to August 2020 – even if not fast enough to my taste).



Did you vastly change your proposal ?



Best regards



-éric



From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 August 2020 at 21:36
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv10 I-D Destiny.







On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:27 PM, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>> wrote:



It’s really weird to hear the silence for my e-mails at the IETf main list,...



You were told in 2017 that this was not appropriate for this list and to take this topic to INTAREA.



You did and it was discussed and rejected for further discussion here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/cYhjioyneuGF-Y0LEHUiO_p91jo/



If you want further consideration:

a) *significantly* update your proposal, addressing the feedback you received 3 years ago

b) post a request to evaluate that new proposal to INTAREA



Simply re-posting and re-asking a question isn’t going to change the answer.



PS - the link below is to -06; the most recent (and still expired) is -11.



Joe





From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Khaled Omar
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 3:48 AM
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Subject: IPv10 I-D Destiny.



...



Here is the linky to the IPv10 I-D:



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06



THANK YOU,



Khaled Omar