Hi Khalid,
Are you aware what you are proposing!!?
Those RFCs are incorporated into all the Vendors for many years now.
Hundreds of Experts have been working on these Protocols, and you just want
them to obsolete?
What is your value proposition, I have read your letter, but honestly it
doesn't give me any feeling that it is a real solution.
We do have IPv6/IPv4 already talking to each other, why do you think an
additional Address Family would make our life easier?
Please consider this, and try to answer these questions to yourself.
And last, please STOP sending mails to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, this is not
the right
way to do it.
Regards,
Leonir Hoxha
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka(_at_)nic(_dot_)cz>
wrote:
Dear Khaled,
if you are a new implementation of the Turing Test, then pass my deepest
compliments to your author. Otherwise, PLEASE STOP sending this to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing list.
Thanks, Lada
On 22 Dec 2016, at 11:29, Khaled Omar
<eng(_dot_)khaled(_dot_)omar(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi All,
Easy next step, some RFCs should be obsoleted and some others should be
updated.
For example, these RFCs should be obsoleted:
RFC 1853.
RFC 2766.
RFC 6146.
RFC 6144.
.
.
These RFCs should be updated:
RFC 2460.
.
.
.
Looking for a private discussion regarding IPv10 future topics.
Best regards,
Khaled Omar
From: Khaled Omar
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:24 PM
To: 'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt).
Hi IETF members,
I would like to inform you that the IPv10 Internet draft has been
successfully uploaded.
Here is the link for the IPv10 Internet draft
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt
All participants for the IPv10 discussion regardless if there will be
addition or modification will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for your time.
Best Regards,
Khaled Omar
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
--
----
*Leonir Hoxha*