"IPng" was the general thing that would come after IPv4, and not a specific proposal.
The specific proposal that was chosen (over TUBA (aka ISO's CLNP), as well as CATNIP) was Simple Internet Protocol Plus (SIPP):
Sounds like IPv7, from year 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475
> I'm the opinion that we are slow to adopt IPv6 since it's too different from IPv4
Doubt, seeing how IPv7 appeared around the same time as IPv6 (RFC1883, from year 1995) and we still don't see IPv7 anywhere.
To be fair, IPv7 seems to have been deprecated in 2012 (RFC6814). It had almost 20 years to catch up but, quoting the RFC, "IPv7 was never widely deployed".
The author(s) of IPv7 (TP/IX) 'abandoned' / altered it to CATNIP:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1707
This was put up for consideration for IPng, and compared with TUBA and SIPP:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
The general idea of SIPP(-16) was chosen (and tweaked) to be IPng, now called IPv6.
The criteria needed for IPng candidates were:
Also adopting IPv6 these days would require to maintain still IPv4, this means that for example firewall rules must be made both for IPv4 and IPv6, something that adds a lot of work to IT technicians (and they thus disable the protocol that if you disable the internet still works, that is IPv6). Extending IPv4 would mean that the same firewall rules can apply, just considering again the upper 32 bits of the address.
Finally IPv6 is in general more complex, it has some obscure things like SLAAC or the fact that an interface can have multiple IPs, that not all IPs are routable, etc, even simply the notation for IPv6 addresses that is not even consistent among software (in some software you have to put it between [] to disambiguate with port numbers, in some other not), DHCPv6 implementations that are still these days quite broken, etc. Compared to IPv4 is quite a complication...
I'm the opinion that we are slow to adopt IPv6 since it's too different from IPv4, and requires maintaining a network with two protocols, since everyone completes the migrations, this is unlikely to succeed in the next years (for example in my country, Italy, most ISP, even the most important one, don't even bother to provide you an IPv6 address! I think that because it does increment the problems and thus the requests to handle in the customer service, thus they decided that you just get IPv4 that works reliably).