Re: [Int-area] Decisions regarding IPv10 I-D.

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Wed, 05 April 2017 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 1E293129490 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable 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 O2jj4Gn5aow6 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14B112709D for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.208]) by atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v35JW2tB010556 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:32:02 -0400
Received: (qmail 24467 invoked by uid 0); 5 Apr 2017 19:32:01 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.100.68.25
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.160?) (lee@asgard.org@68.100.68.25) by 0 with ESMTPA; 5 Apr 2017 19:32:00 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:31:57 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>, "intarea-ads@ietf.org" <intarea-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D50ABB91.766DC%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Decisions regarding IPv10 I-D.
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3574251120_142627650"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/IDYJUtVIOZXimzD5_Yl0IF1DYm8>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Decisions regarding IPv10 I-D.
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:32:16 -0000

To move forward, there must be a clear and documented consensus, as judged
by the WG chairs (as you can see at  https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ they
are Wassim Haddad and Juan-Carlos Zúñiga). Then the WG would adopt the
draft, make edits, and make a WGLC (Working Group Last Call). If there was
consensus, there would be an IETF Last Call.

Based on email traffic, if the WG tried to adopt this, I would appeal the
decision. 

You have another choice: Independent Submission, see rfc6548. The
Independent Submission Editor has different requirements and processes, and
is designed for alternate perspectives. However, based on the technical
objections raised here, I do not think your draft would meet the editorial
standards of the ISE.

To understand the process, I recommend https://www.ietf.org/tao.html, and
https://www.ietf.org/edu/tutorials.html

Lee



From:  Int-area <int-area-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
Date:  Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM
To:  "intarea-ads@ietf.org" <intarea-ads@ietf.org>
Cc:  "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>rg>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org"
<intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject:  [Int-area] Decisions regarding IPv10 I-D.

> Hi ALL,
>  
> Is there any official decision will be taken regarding the IPv10 I-D whether
> assigning to a reviewer, changing the status, or publishing the Standard.
>  
> Of course all of you know that the added value by this I-D will affect all of
> us in a positive way so we shouldn¹t wait more than that.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Khaled Omar 
> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area