IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 30 March 2017 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BD2129613 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 nADl7LLddP9f for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 476291294C7 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.240.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2UGBw4P018713 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <9c0d9f36-7a07-f9a0-c8b9-75ea5bcb7cf2@kit.edu> <20170330160129.GA5508@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <a42f8fdb-1794-d818-00c6-4d57282d47e7@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:11:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170330160129.GA5508@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3464575F7A61B8ABBEE201D8"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/F3yvqxvhgirzOYOM0PTS3Lr7-xM>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:12:21 -0000


On 3/30/2017 9:01 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> - As others already pointed out:
> Indeed, it has been said several times to the author but he keeps not
> listening. I wonder why there was a slot at the IETF meeting.
The IETF is a place that lets a thousand flowers bloom, but has
historically been less adept at pruning.

A good garden requires both. IMO, that's a lesson for the evaluation of
all proposals.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email