I believe it can all be safely ignored, but it does seem like a silly waste of resources that they bother to work on it at all. Regards Brian On 13/11/2016 09:40, Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] wrote: > The next one to look into is the new NGI initiative of the European > Commission to start working on new Internet protocols, although this is just > research, after the failure of the Future Internet research program and GENI > in the US (though Openflow was funded at Stanford) so not really a threat > but could be used to put some sanity in researchers in quest of inventing > something new :-) > > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/next-generation-internet-initi > ative > > https://twitter.com/NGI4eu > > Latif > > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Latif LADID > [IPv6-based Internet] > Sent: 12 November 2016 21:27 > To: 'Scott O. Bradner' <sob@xxxxxxxxx>; 'IETF discussion list' > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: IPv10. > > 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 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >