Subject: Fw: Fw: [Int-area] IETF 98 Minutes

From: Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:57:16 +0000

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fw: [Int-area] IETF 98 Minutes
From: Khaled Omar
To: Matthew Kerwin
CC: int-area

Ok, so regardless it was published in "1998" or 1995, the migration process took so much time since these dates without full migration till now, this is what we should think about, the long or longer time, it is not a history class, and I had only 5 minutes for the whole IPv10 presentation.

Anyway, the interruption made for this modification gives a bad impression about the level of discussion made at this ietf meeting by participants.

Thanks for the core discussion.

KHALED OMAR

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fw: [Int-area] IETF 98 Minutes
From: Matthew Kerwin
To: Khaled Omar
CC:

RFC 2460 was published in 1998.

It obsoleted RFC 1883, which was published in 1995.

That information is available in the document header, and in the metadata that can be queried from the IETF tools.

On 8 April 2017 at 08:52, Khaled Omar <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IETF 98 Minutes
From: Khaled Omar
To: Juan Carlos Zuniga ,[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
CC: "suresh.krishnan" ,"wassim.haddad"

Hi,

> IPv6 was 1995 not 1998.

Then we should blame the ietf and the IPv6 authors for the wrong information listed in the IPv6 RFC 2460.

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt

Best,

Khaled Omar

--
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/