Re: Running code (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/10/2018 à 20:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I don't think this can be enforced and even less for a specific ID
> or WG.
> 
> And this will be discriminatory also if applied to all the IETF 
> work.
> 
> There are many authors that don't have time, resources, access to
> the source code from vendors, or even knowledge, among many many
> many other possible reasons, to implement an ID they submit.

An additional reason is the following: it can be a waste of time
implementing something whose spec gets scrapped.

This reason typically applies when implementing an individual proposal 
Internet Draft.

Alex

> Also, there will be IDs which are not "implementable", etc., and
> clearly that doesn't disqualify that it may be a perfectly valid
> work.
> 
> I guess this is a discussion that should be held at the general area 
> list.
> 
> Regards, Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6 <[e-mail]> en 
> nombre de Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> Fecha: martes, 
> 23 de octubre de 2018, 20:26 Para: Sander Steffann 
> <[e-mail]> CC: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>, 
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> Asunto: Re: Running code (Was: I-D 
> Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)
> 
> 
>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Sander Steffann <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Changed the subject because this discussion is now moving away
>> from any specific draft.
>> 
>>> That's kind of my take, as well However, I think that asking for 
>>> an implementation of the ipv6-only flag is a requirement that I 
>>> have never seen for taking new work or publishing it, so it
>>> would be unfair to ask that to the authors of this particular
>>> I-D.
>> 
>> I'd like that to become the norm though. Having a running
>> prototype can help enormously when writing specifications. My
>> preference would be to move back to a base principle of running
>> code and rough consensus, instead of only rough consensus.
> 
> If the WG decides to go on this path, I will be fully supportive of 
> that. This model has worked out well for idr (see 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki#ImplementationRequirement). What 
> I am uncomfortable with is that criterion being *selectively*
> applied to this draft as a prerequisite for progress.
> 
> Thanks Suresh
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you 
> ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 
> Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If
> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,
> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>