IPv10 has been discussed on this main IETF list a number of times in the past - it looks like the earliest was in 2016. The reaction from the community doesn't change much and I would make a (not even educated) guess that it's not gonna. This is a good summary (from 2017), I think: https://www.noction.com/blog/ipv10. In particular it notes the April 1st RFC for IPv09. I'm puzzled though as the last version of the IPv10 draft (now expired) states: " This contribution has been withdrawn.:
So, again, not clear at all why this discussion is happening yet again (other than it shows yet again the very low signal to noise ratio on this list and how quickly personal attacks are made).
Regards,
Mary.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 2:13 PM Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The temperature on this _whole thread_ does indeed need to drop several (tens of) degrees.Khaled,If memory serves, there was previously a round of discussion on IPv10 within intarea. If you have a new version of the document (one that ideally incorporates some feedback to address points raised during that discussion) then it's appropriate to state as much in that context and solicit new feedback.-ErikOn Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:42 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Wow, what an asshole you are.
> On 09/21/2022 2:30 PM EDT Ross Finlayson <finlayson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I don’t know why till now the IETF didn’t take the IPv10 draft seriously into consideration
> >
> > You would likely get some benefit reviewing this document : https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/
>
> And also this document: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
