Lloyd,
One last thing to add (IMHO), draft withdrawal was due to confusion of interest that was coming from the participants, before, in the beginning, there was positive and constructive comments, later, there was so much of negative opinions that
kills the idea, and what happened once i decided to withdraw the draft, i got a job and became busy with my personal life that prevented me from participating here even i wanted so much and tried hardly to find the time even to ask “Is there any better solution?”
But still the same comments, let’s be frank so we can make progress, listening to two different comments from the same person destroys the reputation, i don’t know what’s going on in the head, but signs makes me understand later that this draft deserves to
be taken seriously into consideration and avoid any past mistakes, please help in letting me rewrite this draft and submit a new one, i cannot alone post a draft without the secretary assistance, please send the guide lines and i will work on it anywhere outside
of my business hours, and please suggest how i can ask for reopening the registration so i can prepare for it from now, let’s try something different and listen to the one accurate decision makers.
Kind regards,
Khaled Omar
Senior Service Delivery Engineer
Dell Technologies
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 4:14:17 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf <IETF@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Adding IPv10 I-D to the IETF 119 meeting agenda
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 4:14:17 PM
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf <IETF@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Adding IPv10 I-D to the IETF 119 meeting agenda
Khaled,
Two comments (personal opinion): to add to Lloyd's
(1) Before you withdrew your draft, you were given several very
specific comments. I suggest that you review and pay careful
attention to them in a revised draft before you suggest that
IETF participants pay attention to the ideas. Also, be sure you
note the IETF's policies on copyright, etc. Specifically, if
you post a new draft, do not expect that it can later be
withdrawn from the archives.
(2) While it could, in theory, be reopened, the agenda for the
next IETF meeting has now closed. You could ask for time in
conjunction with an IntArea meeting or on the new ALLDISPATCH
one, but I believe that either would require, not only a new
draft, as Lloyd mentioned, but convincing the leadership for
those meetings to put that draft on the agenda. They may have
different opinions than I do, but, if I were making those
decisions, I would require not only the kinds of adjustments or
corrections to your proposal as suggested above but a clear
statement of why you demanded your draft be withdrawn and why
you intend to participate in the IETF process in good faith.
good luck,
john
--On Saturday, February 24, 2024 08:56 +0000 Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> I took a decision before and can revert it back when i see a
> real change, can give myself 3 more chances and i think it
> will be enough if same way of communication will not change,
> sorry i was busy to make the draft active, my mistake, will
> try my best to participate actively and i hope i will not be
> late in replying due to the different time zone.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 4:32:13 AM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ietf <IETF@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Adding IPv10 I-D to the IETF 119 meeting agenda
>
> Khaled,
>
> Your draft is not active, which is required for discussion
> at a meeting, and you previously demanded
> that your draft be withdrawn from the IETF.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9-g3p7KbZMiOt5Mb43t
> Wlz22lLY/
>
>
> Lloyd Wood
> lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On 24 Feb 2024, at 10:37, Khaled Omar
> <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Dears,
>>
>> Could you please give the green light to the IPv10 I-D to be
>> discussed during the next IETF meeting.
>>
>> You can guide me to the correct Work Group, if IntArea still
>> fits, then please confirm.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Khaled Omar
>> Senior Service Delivery Engineer
>> DELL Technologies
Two comments (personal opinion): to add to Lloyd's
(1) Before you withdrew your draft, you were given several very
specific comments. I suggest that you review and pay careful
attention to them in a revised draft before you suggest that
IETF participants pay attention to the ideas. Also, be sure you
note the IETF's policies on copyright, etc. Specifically, if
you post a new draft, do not expect that it can later be
withdrawn from the archives.
(2) While it could, in theory, be reopened, the agenda for the
next IETF meeting has now closed. You could ask for time in
conjunction with an IntArea meeting or on the new ALLDISPATCH
one, but I believe that either would require, not only a new
draft, as Lloyd mentioned, but convincing the leadership for
those meetings to put that draft on the agenda. They may have
different opinions than I do, but, if I were making those
decisions, I would require not only the kinds of adjustments or
corrections to your proposal as suggested above but a clear
statement of why you demanded your draft be withdrawn and why
you intend to participate in the IETF process in good faith.
good luck,
john
--On Saturday, February 24, 2024 08:56 +0000 Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> I took a decision before and can revert it back when i see a
> real change, can give myself 3 more chances and i think it
> will be enough if same way of communication will not change,
> sorry i was busy to make the draft active, my mistake, will
> try my best to participate actively and i hope i will not be
> late in replying due to the different time zone.
>
> Khaled Omar
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 4:32:13 AM
> To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ietf <IETF@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Adding IPv10 I-D to the IETF 119 meeting agenda
>
> Khaled,
>
> Your draft is not active, which is required for discussion
> at a meeting, and you previously demanded
> that your draft be withdrawn from the IETF.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9-g3p7KbZMiOt5Mb43t
> Wlz22lLY/
>
>
> Lloyd Wood
> lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On 24 Feb 2024, at 10:37, Khaled Omar
> <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Dears,
>>
>> Could you please give the green light to the IPv10 I-D to be
>> discussed during the next IETF meeting.
>>
>> You can guide me to the correct Work Group, if IntArea still
>> fits, then please confirm.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Khaled Omar
>> Senior Service Delivery Engineer
>> DELL Technologies
