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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Tim,
On 2018-10-23 23:44, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 00:01, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/20/18 3:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 2018-10-20 09:37, [e-mail] 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 hasn't gone away, although formally it only applies for promotion
>>> above "Proposed Standard" status. And I believe in it, and that's why
>>> there's running code for GRASP (draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15). But for
>>> something that has to go into the basic IP stack, it's not so easy to
>>> prototype, and I am still not seeing why people would raise the barrier
>>> for this particular minor extension rather than, say, for the extension
>>> mechanism for RA flags that appears to be completely unimplemented.
>>
>> +1
> 
> I think the problem is that we don't even have "rough consensus" here, yet alone "running code".

I think it's a bit worse than not having rough consensus. We have people
saying "this is useful, somebody should code it up" and others saying
"this is potentially harmful and a waste of effort."

    Brian