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(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 12 November 2016 21:06
To: IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: Latif LADID [IPv6-based Internet] <latif(_at_)ladid(_dot_)lu>;
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IPv10.
but consistent?
Scott
On Nov 12, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: 12 November 2016 02:43
To: Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>
Cc: Khaled Omar <eng(_dot_)khaled(_dot_)omar(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>;
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------