On 12. 08. 20 14:25, IETF Sergeant at Arms wrote: > Hi all, > > We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team > (described in more detail at [1]) consider this thread [2] to be more > appropriate for int-area@xxxxxxxx [3]. And as per the IETF discussion > list charter [4], we suggest that the discussions should be moved to the > more specific forum identified. Can this possibly ever help? Here is my message that I sent to this list almost four years ago: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xIm0l6b24OGljNzZsKzLhGFGxMU/ Lada > > Thanks, > Dhruv Dhody on behalf of the SAA team > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c8Un1c9wNrXUrzPOci_EdLEHBNY/ > [3] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005 > > On 12/08/20 11:51 am, Lars Eggert wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2020-8-12, at 7:27, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It’s really weird to hear the silence for my e-mails at the IETf main >>> list, >> >> you gave it not even four hours since your earlier email, which you >> posted in the middle of the night (European/US time). I am sure you >> will get feedback shortly (incl. mine below). >> >>> As I proposed an I-D earlier that offers a solution to this pandemic >>> that started to be distributed in the internet due to IPv4 address >>> space exhaustion and the no migration to IPv6 occurred till now. >>> >>> So please take one moment and evaluate the IPv10 I-D and make an >>> accurate decision whether it can be promoted to a Standard or there >>> is another solution that could solve this problem from its roots. >> >> This is not how the IETF operates. Please review RFC2026. >> >> Regarding your proposal, briefly: >> >> (1) A networking architecture consist of much more than a header >> encoding scheme - that is the easy part. >> >> (2) Simply pointing to IPsec is not a security analysis. >> >> (3) The I-D says "there is no need to think about migration" when >> there clearly is such a need - the I-D expects all hosts and routers >> to understand and speak a new packet format. >> >> (4) This paragraph IMO demonstrates best how far from deployment >> realities the proposal is: >> >> "IPv10 support on "all" Internet connected hosts can be deployed >> in a very short time by technology companies developing OSs >> (for hosts and networking devices, and there will be no >> dependence on enterprise users and it is just a software >> development process in the NIC cards of all hosts to allow >> encapsulating both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same IP packet header." >> >> Sorry, but this is unpublishable. >> >> Lars >> > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
