Re: Comments on draft-thain-ipv8-01
Chris Box <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACJ6M14AGHO1EqEvMeZu3RJRjRszMrm6YEAoyyMV=4HEcRjxVw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 at 08:28, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 17 Apr 2026, at 12:57, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Most physics/mech journals have a rule that they don’t take perpetuum > mobile submissions. > > Maybe we need such a rule for Internet-Drafts about new IP versions… > > > Whilst I understand the concept, that would suggest that IPv6 was the > perfect solution in perpetuity. Such concepts usually do not end well. > > Perpetual motion is contra to the laws of physics. IPv6 cannot rely on > such a significant backstop. > Just a quick note to say that discussion about proposed new IP versions should be directed to [email protected]. That's where Jamie's proposal has moved to. Discussions about IETF rules in general, of course are fine here. Chris