IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 19 October 2018 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C89128C65 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0jvSJwqGOg0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A48130E71 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.187] (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86819FECC0B8; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:13:04 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-68B896B5-78EC-4552-83DA-E448211900A1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A404)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z3zMcQSG2QpEhKByRr73BnEFC7xwayHe7p86TQpUvQYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 00:12:54 +0200
Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <82E7C4FD-AD73-4697-9FC6-F61FBCB50375@employees.org>
References: <CAFU7BASO_ByzbanhLKnWV280O_fASd-8W+ujpj3sN6d2-whw2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-u7aAPwAOcixYvt2On=-o_8X25GhqdXTfA+tWRC1o2XA@mail.gmail.com> <3beca72e-19c5-10af-02e5-c21a90d77100@gmail.com> <20181019.223739.271916573.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAO42Z2z3zMcQSG2QpEhKByRr73BnEFC7xwayHe7p86TQpUvQYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5tlWZGg-LGlNjn9i9LAmiYmgWaU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:13:08 -0000


> On 19 Oct 2018, at 23:55, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 7:38 am , <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
>> > Job,
>> > On 2018-10-20 01:35, Job Snijders wrote:
>> >> I think it would be good to have some running code before advancing this to
>> >> IESG review and RFC publication. 
>> > 
>> > Why is this proposal special in that respect? This is not an IETF requirement
>> > and despite the BCP advocating an Implementation Status section, very few drafts
>> > do this.
>> > 
>> > Note, I am all for some trial implementations, but why does *this* draft
>> > need one when so many others don't?
>> 
>> Whatever happened to "We believe in rough consensus and running code"?
> 
> 
> It isn't "We require ..."

It isn’t. But it’s quite a big span between “it’s a hint” and “though shall disable ipv4 unless you have bloody good reason not to”. 

In my view, I don’t see much purpose in the bit unless it’s prescriptive. As in the last category. 

We might have to go through having running code before we can agree on which of the above it’s going to be, if any. 

Cheers 
Ole



> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>          https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/
>> 
>> That certainly *used* to be one of the big differences between the
>> ISO/OSI standardization process and the Internet standardization
>> process...
>> 
>> Steinar Haug, AS2116
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email