Randy Bush wrote on 29/05/2018 02:18:
maybe do an actual review?
There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said by many other
people, but let's rinse and repeat anyway:
IPv10: the proposals ignore all previous discussions about ipv4 to ipv6
compatibility schemas. There's been a good deal of discussion about
this over the years, and the general opinion is that direct ipv4-ipv6
compatibility shims are unworkable for a variety of reasons. Brian
Carpenter sent this helpful and constructive email in Nov 2016:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99798.html
This still stands today.
KRP: describes some form of hierarchical address allocation mechanism
but there are no details provided about the "protocol" itself. There
isn't anything to review here because the draft has no workable content.
The problem isn't a lack of reviews, it's that these ideas have been
discussed repeatedly at the ietf over many years and the consensus is
that they are unworkable.
Khaled has not gone to the effort of looking into why they were
unworkable, nor has he developed his proposals to the point that they
are actually testable in a lab environment (at which point it would
become clear that they are unworkable in the real world).
Khaled apparently isn't interested in listening to this feedback. The
feedback and reviews are there.
We've had ~300 emails on ietf@, and nothing has progressed beyond what
was stated in Nov 2016, at which stage Khaled was warned multiple times
by the sergeant-at-arms of the time that his attempts to bring these
topics up on the ietf@ mailing list were not ok:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99875.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99932.html
.... hence the request for sergeant-at-arms to intervene again.
Nick
