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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jinmei-san,

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 4:01 PM, 神明達哉 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> At Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:26:28 -0400,
> Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> > > 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 <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. 
> 
> I agree as a general statement, but I believe we should carefully look
> into the context for this particular case.  I supported the idea of
> seeing an implementation of this draft in my own comment because the
> draft has been controversial and there has not even been an interest
> in (let alone an attempt of) implementing it even if host implementors
> should be a primary beneficiaries of this proposal. 

And in fact, I found your response to be most helpful in the way of how this can be implemented. Thanks for that! I think the crux of the issue is about what to do on a host implementation. e.g. installing iptables entries to filter IPv4 may or may not be acceptable to some of the people who commented on this thread. 

> Given these I
> believe it's reasonable and fair to suggest to hold off a while and
> see if there's someone at least trying to have a prototype
> implementation and if we can learn from it.  My general impression of
> this thread is that others who supported the idea did so more or less
> for the same reason, i.e, taking into account the situation instead of
> abruptly raising the bar just because they didn't like the proposal.

> 
> Whether we should generally/always require an implementation as a wg
> is a different topic.  I personally support at least the sense of the
> idea (how strictly it should apply would still be a different
> question), but I understand different people will have different
> opinions on that point.

Yep. Agree.

Thanks
Suresh