Re: A Call of a WG for IPv10.

[Ali Mezgani <ali.mezgani@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

No need for IPv10, but theoretically if an WG wish to explore a way to think differently about architecting an IPng, I agree that they has all right to

have a fun with it.

IPv6 covers all the need we’ll be invoked for use for many years. It appeared in 1995 after looking for IPv5.

Personally, I will cooperate in optimizing IPv6 and features than IPv10.

Kind regards,  

On Sep 25, 2020, at 23:08, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear all,

 

Let me correct slightly the content of this email:

1. Even if Fred Baker (OPSEC WG chair) and myself (INT AD) are in Cc: we do not endorse  in any way this initiative
2. There is no IPv10[1] WG planned for now, so, it is more about a ‘potential WG’ than a ‘future WG’

 

Of course, as described in RFC 2418, any member of the community can try to build a team around his/her ideas/requirements/topics and follow the creation procedure described in RFC 2418.

 

So, I assume this is what Khaled intends to initiate with his email, so, communicate directly with him if you support the initiative and are ready to work with him.

 

Let’s not discuss the technical merits and issues of the “IPv10” draft on this mailing list but rather please communicate directly with Khaled Omar directly.

 

Regards

 

-éric

 

[1] obviously, IANA has not yet allocated 10 as a version of IP.

 

From: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 25 September 2020 at 21:23
To: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>, Eric Vyncke <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: A Call of a WG for IPv10.

 

Dear ALL,

 

This is to inform you that we are looking for participants to join a future WG for IPv10 please add your name if you are interested so we can count the number of participants and start the work.

 

E.g Khaled Omar (Yes).

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Khaled Omar