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)

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

For the record, he has also requested air time in V6ops. I responded to him with a similar request, and added an additional point that I suspect should be important in int-area as well. The objective is to turn 

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Roland Bless <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
>> On 17.09.20 at 20:43 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Besides my already expressed concerns that this proposal is technically
> not sound and in itself already contradicting, there has been another
> (later) version that already used a different name (IPmix).
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipmix-01
> I actually don't know why Khaled used the old IPv10 term again,
> but I know several cases where blogs and "press" took this for
> a serious "IETF" proposal, causing quite some confusion at that time.
> So please do NOT use the term IPv10 as it will cause lots of confusion
> outside the IETF.
> 
> We have been there before...
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/4vhoJou8FTXJThDuRgleqDlpTT4/
> 
> So I agree that it makes no sense to discuss this even further without
> an updated I-D that addresses all concerns expressed so far.
> 
> Regards,
> Roland
> 
> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area