On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:49:10PM +0000, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I just thought maybe something has changed, if u understand the recent situation you would suggest or do something positive, anyway we can just wait and see if the "problem" will cross the threshold or not. > What I recall from past threads about this is that nobody was able to understand how this proposal would make it any easier to solve the problem. So it's not a matter of whether the problem will cross any threshold; as long as it's the same proposal you made before, I don't think any of the rest of us see how it will help. It sounds no easier to transition to than existing already-adopted solutions. Yes, those have many problems, and have taken a long time, but the point is that I don't recall seeing any way that this proposal you call IPv10 would do any better, so it just seems like it would complicate matters without helping. If you have a new proposal, or a clear explanation of how your existing proposal will outperform existing solutions in a significant way, that's what might get people to consider your proposal. But just pointing out the problem you want to solve, and that it's not solved yet, without getting anyone to understand how your proposal actually does so better than what they're already doing, won't. I did read a lot of what you said in past threads, as well as looked at your drafts, and I could not find that. I saw something that would be just as hard to transition to, except with a much later start giving it a disadvantage. -- Cos
