RE: IPv10.

The IETF/3GPP endorsement agreement can be used to stop them as it clearly
states that ETSI should not be involved in IETF work but just endorse it.

Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob@sobco.com] 
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <latif@ladid.lu>; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv10.

but consistent?

Scott

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Latif,
> 
> On 12/11/2016 20:17, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote:
>> Jon Postel will swizel in his grave if v10 is not assigned by IANA first.
>> Let's not confuse the market. A working group at ETSI has been formed 
>> 6 months ago called NGP ( Next Gereation Protocols) lashing at v4 and 
>> v6 to invent a new one.
> 
> How incredibly foolish of them.
> 
>   Brian
> 
>> Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10 space :-)
>> 
>> Latif
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E 
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
>> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>> Cc: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>; ipv6@ietf.org; 
>> ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: IPv10.
>> 
>> On 12/11/2016 14:15, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal for a 
>>>> problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described.
>>> 
>>> how about ipv4 and ipv6 are incompatible on the wire and this has 
>>> created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot?
>> 
>> Yes, I suggest mentioning that to Vint, Bob and a few others in 1977, 
>> so that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in
>> 2016 will be grateful.
>> 
>>   Brian
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
> 