Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Give me some time and I will revise the IPv10 I-D and I hope there will be more to add, because really the first version of this draft was uploaded in December 2016, so I listened to many positive opinions and made so many modifications till the version that I think is the best form of the draft.

Anyway, I will do what you ask for.

Best Regards,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:44 PM
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Still need to know what has changed.... Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

Khaled,

As you may have guessed from other replies, it would HELP A LOT if you uploaded a revised I-D taking into account the previous comments (and not only the filename change) including those about deployment, scalability, ...

So, I am afraid that without a revised I-D addressing those problems, the discussion will go nowhere as we can see now on the intarea mailing list.

As long as there is no such revised I-D, I see no point in continuing this discussion or presenting an old version of the IPv10 draft at an IETF meeting.

Thank you in advance for a revised I-D [1] addressing the previous comments from a couple of years ago. Then, I am sure that this WG will review it.

Regards

-éric (and for information the responsible Area Director for intarea WG)

[1] and having some interns/students working on experimental code would be a big proof that your idea does work in real life.


-----Original Message-----
From: Int-area <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:46
To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>, int-area <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10)

    Hello Khaled,

    In your email, you refer to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06 but may I assume that you meant the latest 2018 version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11 ?

    Anyway, before presenting the draft, a revised IETF draft should be uploaded as all previous revisions are expired.

    You also have received some feedback on the mailing lists, did you incorporate them in a revision ?

    The above steps are really the critical conditions to present a draft at an IETF meeting.

    Regards

    -éric

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
    Date: Wednesday, 16 September 2020 at 15:20
    To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, int-area <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>, Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
    Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10

        Sorry, IETF 98 Not 101 :-)

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Khaled Omar 
        Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:12 PM
        To: 'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)' <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
        Subject: RE: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10

        Hi Eric,

        The IPv10 I-D was presented once at IETF 101 remotely through the IntArea and there was a technical issue prevented the draft to be presented completely.

        >> I do not see a major difference with previous drafts.

        This is because of the completion of the draft, IMHO it should be reviewed and an official decision should be taken, because the problem of the depletion of the IPv4 address space still has no recent solution applied, we cannot wait too long for IPv6 which requires tranining and this occurred actually but in vain.

        Best regards,

        Khaled Omar

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> 
        Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:05 PM
        To: Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; int-area <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
        Subject: Re: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10

        Khaled,

        As the responsible AD for the intarea WG, I wonder why you are forwarding a V6OPS request to intarea ? Your draft has been already presented at intarea a couple of times and (I may be wrong) I do not see a major difference with previous drafts.

        -éric

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Int-area <[e-mail]> on behalf of Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
        Date: Saturday, 12 September 2020 at 01:47
        To: int-area <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
        Subject: [Int-area] FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10

            FYI, just to let you know so maybe you can help with something.

            Best Regards,

            Khaled Omar

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Khaled Omar 
            Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 1:42 AM
            To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
            Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
            Subject: RE: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109

            Hi Ron,

            Hope my I-D is clear for you, let me ask if we can reserve a slot for the IP-v10 I-D to be discussed during the next coming meeting so we can solve the problem that IMHO became clear for everyone even students.

            Good Luck,

            Khaled Omar 

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Khaled Omar 
            Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:56 PM
            To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
            Subject: RE: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109

            Hi V6OPS WG,

            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

            Best Regards,

            Khaled Omar

            -----Original Message-----
            From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of IETF Meeting Session Request Tool
            Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:52 PM
            To: [e-mail]
            Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
            Subject: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109



            A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Fred Baker, a Chair of the v6ops working group.


            ---------------------------------------------------------
            Working Group Name: IPv6 Operations
            Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Fred Baker


            Number of Sessions: 1
            Length of Session(s):  2 Hours
            Number of Attendees: 100
            Conflicts to Avoid: 
             Chair Conflict: spring lsr 6man intarea idr

             Key Participant Conflict: rtgwg tsvarea panrg grow tsvwg





            People who must be present:
              Fred Baker
              Ron Bonica
              Warren &quot;Ace&quot; Kumari

            Resources Requested:

            Special Requests:



            ---------------------------------------------------------


            _______________________________________________
            v6ops mailing list
            [e-mail]
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

            _______________________________________________
            Int-area mailing list
            [e-mail]
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area


    _______________________________________________
    Int-area mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area