Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops

I did not copy the opinion of others. I was a member of that list, and 
it was my conviction, too. And I also witnessed, how some people tried 
to kindly explain you why your proposal was not working. As they did not 
succeed, I do not even try.

Gábor

14/09/2020 15:55 keltezéssel, Khaled Omar írta:
> Hi,
>
> Don't copy the opinion that was mentioned there, use your own mind and give a clear opinion to make the discussion beneficial.
>
> Maybe they have their own reasoning.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Khaled Omar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lencse Gábor
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:52 PM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv10 Discussion in v6ops
>
> Simon, you are completely right: this thing has already been discussed on int-area mailing list in 2017. It was pointed out that the name was misleading, as well as that this solution was not at all viable as an
> IPv6 transition mechanism.
>
> I do not see any reason to reiterate the topic on this mailing list.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gábor
>
> 14/09/2020 15:09 keltezéssel, Simon Hobson írta:
>> Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Is it possible to reserve a slot for the IPv10 I-D to be presented completely during the v6ops wg meeting session?
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-06
>> I only had a quick look, but doesn't this just re-hash discussions/documentation that's already been done elsewhere ?
>> Also, I think calling it IPv10 is just asking to cause confusion - it
>> should be rejected just for that ;-)
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>