The IETF/3GPP endorsement agreement can be used to stop them as it clearly states that ETSI should not be involved in IETF work but just endorse it. Latif -----Original Message----- From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06 To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <latif@xxxxxxxx>; ipv6@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: IPv10. but consistent? Scott > On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Latif, > > On 12/11/2016 20:17, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote: >> Jon Postel will swizel in his grave if v10 is not assigned by IANA first. >> Let's not confuse the market. A working group at ETSI has been formed >> 6 months ago called NGP ( Next Gereation Protocols) lashing at v4 and >> v6 to invent a new one. > > How incredibly foolish of them. > > Brian > >> Also the ITU will jump on this one to occupy the v10 space :-) >> >> Latif >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E >> Carpenter >> Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43 >> To: Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ipv6@xxxxxxxx; >> ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: IPv10. >> >> On 12/11/2016 14:15, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> Right now it seems that you have got a solution proposal for a >>>> problem, that is IMHO not very clearly described. >>> >>> how about ipv4 and ipv6 are incompatible on the wire and this has >>> created a multi-decade ipv6 charlie foxtrot? >> >> Yes, I suggest mentioning that to Vint, Bob and a few others in 1977, >> so that they can design IPv4 with extensible addresses. People in >> 2016 will be grateful. >> >> Brian >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@xxxxxxxx >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >