Thank you, everyone, for your responses. Abe, I appreciate your enthisam but it is obvious you are not interested in collaboration. You are singularly-minded and trollish.
I am assigning your email address to my spam filters. I will not see any future communication from you. O. On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 4:13 p.m. Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > Hi, Seth: > > 0) Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts. > > 1) While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with > the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed > the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now > focusing on enhancing CG-NAT by expanding RFC6598. > > Regards, > > > Abe (2024-01-13 16:08) > > On 2024-01-12 14:45, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Michael Thomas writes: > > > I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that > makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works > for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these > recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the > knowability of whether it could work is zero. > > In 2008 there were two proposals > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/ > > where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to > use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space. > Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a > lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more > significant progress on its usability. > > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free.www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > <#m_2842409467345373561_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
