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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
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 4FD7F129A0C for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ntj9SICa1LfO for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 7598112998D for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-87c5.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c03700128f4d9cd67508cb7a7.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:f4d9:cd67:508c:b7a7]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v2VGIXEa075612 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:18:34 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host t2001067c03700128f4d9cd67508cb7a7.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:f4d9:cd67:508c:b7a7] claimed to be dhcp-87c5.meeting.ietf.org
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
References: <D502B93A.74992%lee@asgard.org> <AM4PR0401MB224189BDD22CD327CF280AA3BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703310806130.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1d67d033-8a0f-c7eb-ae37-ec99f5a34660@kit.edu> <AM4PR0401MB2241FCE296DCD88D7D065520BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S35umePtAb-noP_CiXOh9Kf8j00oCVPSevci6EE9fyxTqQ@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB2241D2A7F373B24116E999BCBD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAFU7BAS6qVBHNFjz0Lzs0m5JnC_ZvmWg_7MU6+6-VnMMPi1Z9w@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB22418580403CD59795AF3B0FBD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <D503E0B7.74E23%lee@asgard.org> <AM4PR0401MB224149E38D8AEEAF381349A6BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <688d884a-5fd6-6f97-f7b9-8af30d6d8b8e@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:18:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB224149E38D8AEEAF381349A6BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ad6oWPMrolT8CnO6NOemkijtUp0TOPPnR"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/KBWmNyPLbO9hke5-81uImy9U3KY>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: 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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:18:43 -0000

On 3/31/17 11:05, Khaled Omar wrote:
>> I don¹t see any evidence that you are gaining consensus. Jen¹s
>> suggestion was very good: develop a stack and get some deployment
>> experience to show it can work.
> 
> There are many people who likes IPv10 and support it, also I'm not a
> software developer who works for a company developing an OS, if you
> don't believe that this idea works, you have to try it by yourself
> and get back to me with the result and what was your problem, maybe
> you are not good in writing codes or whatever.

Ad Hominem arguments are not acceptable basis for discource here or
elsewhere in the IETF.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7154

Thanks
joel