All,
I am trying to work offline with the author. I suggested a couple of weeks ago
that he start with reviewing existing work.
I am just now returning home from IETF in Seoul. I will continue to try to
work offline with Khaled for some more time. Thanks,
Nalini ElkinsIETF Mentoring Team
Inside Products, Inc.www.insidethestack.com(831) 659-8360
From: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: IPmix.
SM,
The right place to discuss this draft was the
big-internet(_at_)munnari(_dot_)oz(_dot_)au list
in 1992-1994. As several people have tried to explain to the author, both
on-list
and off-list, this class of proposal was overtaken by events many years ago.
It really attempts, but fails, to solve the problem that has already been solved
in all popular operating systems by the implementation of dual stacks. Its
chance
of success in the real Internet is precisely zero.
I strongly encourage the author, who is clearly technically competent, to work
on current problems. (Also to start by reading
https://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 21/11/2016 08:05, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Khaled,
At 09:44 20-11-2016, Khaled Omar wrote:
You can find the new modified IPmix text RFC version attached.
The usual way to submit an Internet-Draft is through
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/
The Sergeant-at-arms wrote a message [1] about the previous document
which was sent as an attachment. He stated that "you need to check
with the relevant chairs to find the right venue" [1]. In my opinion
the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing list is not the best venue to discuss
about
your proposal as the Sergeant-at-arms already commented about that in
his message.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99875.html