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

Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> Fri, 31 March 2017 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <terry.manderson@icann.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 B308612950C for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 DQ9yAGd98SqA for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0979124D37 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:12:19 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:12:19 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
Thread-Index: AQHSqfSiKSlxm86P00OSlELeuOdceqGvUcwAgAAjJ4CAAAFqgIAABXOAgAAFJoCAAAlAgIAACHKAgACpjgA=
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:12:19 +0000
Message-ID: <659D8C70-B6F9-46C7-AA9E-669C9DC8C7F4@icann.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>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB224149E38D8AEEAF381349A6BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3573857538_1814742108"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/WB0lwmYIkMUyKDwlRF9Vsi6LJ4Q>
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 16:12:24 -0000

Khaleed,

I would like to highlight a well-known idiom in the IETF, about the IETF.

"Rough consensus and running code"

The means that not only does one need to demonstrate the benefits of their idea in a working implementation (a protocol stack in this case), and really the onus is on you to have a cohort of people about you to develop that stack if you alone do not have the skills, but then also to gain consensus of the IETF as to the technology in question.

I feel like the discussion so far is diverging into an academic free-for-all without seeing something more tangible than the current state.

Cheers
Terry
INT Area AD.

On 1/04/2017, 2:05 AM, "Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar" <int-area-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> 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.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Lee Howard [mailto:lee@asgard.org] 
    Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:35 PM
    To: Khaled Omar; Jen Linkova
    Cc: int-area@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [Int-area] Fw: Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
    
    
    
    On 3/31/17, 10:02 AM, "Int-area on behalf of Khaled Omar"
    <int-area-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> wrote:
    
    >> So far many people mentioned to you that updating software on clients 
    >>and on network devices is very expensive, complicated and slow process.
    >
    >SOFTWARE UPDATES are expensive, complicated and slow process !
    
    Yes. Years, and hundreds or thousands of hours of expensive labor.
    See where I explained it yesterday at
    https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg05589.html
    
    And that¹s if we stipulate that this can be done in software, which I don¹t.
    
    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.
    
    Lee
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Int-area mailing list
    Int-area@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area