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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

This is a perfect example, even not knowing who is your employer, is not that easy to get that work, or to openly talk about that ...

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>
Fecha: miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2018, 16:46
Para: Job Snijders <[e-mail]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
CC: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>, 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: Running code (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)

    The IDR working group does have requirements on having implementations 
    of drafts before they complete their work on the draft.
    
    I would prefer not to extend that as a requirement to other working 
    groups.  Treating it as desirable, something we ask for, etc. is fine 
    and makes sense.
    
    In my case, I am not in a position (and have not been for many years) to 
    implement these things myself.  I do work with the implementors.  While 
    I can not commit for my product line folks who set schedules, the 
    primary reason i have for working on a draft is that it is something we 
    want to put in our product.  Getting resources to put it in even a 
    demonstration version NOW however is MUCH harder.  Sometimes it happens. 
      Usually, I can't do that.  And even if I can get it implemented early 
    to check things, I may not be permitted to talk about that implementation.
    
    Yours,
    Joel
    
    On 10/24/18 9:52 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
    > Dear Jordi,
    > 
    > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:08 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Then the vendors that have the power to implement everything they
    >> want, definitively win, only because they are able to implement it,
    >> not necessarily because it is good or bad, and the argument of the
    >> implementation will be a tool to reach consensus, even if it takes
    >> longer, more versions, etc. This is real life.
    > 
    > I wouldn't position yourself as 'powerless': you can fork any Linux or
    > BSD IP stacks yourself and make modifications - or you can hire people
    > to do so, or work with students. We are all vendors if we choose to be -
    > we all have this "power". And even if it takes longer, if drafts need to
    > go through more revisions - it usually is a sign the quality and
    > readability are increasing.
    > 
    >> Very good ideas that don't become standards because during the ID
    >> development don't get implemented (even if they will become
    >> implemented once they become RFCs), lose.
    > 
    > Can you point me to a protocol extension specification that was a
    > valuable publication, specifically as RFC, but does not have any
    > implementations? I see no harm for such drafts to wait for publication
    > until some implementation is done.
    > 
    >> I'm sure there have been already many IETF documents that have been in
    >> both situations. Market decides at the end. But that's the thing: at
    >> the end, most of the time only when there is an RFC.
    >>
    >> A couple of examples I can remember, IPv6 site local (it was an RFC)
    >> and draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery, different process stages, both got
    >> implemented by many OS vendors and also Linux. No longer used.
    > 
    > No longer used? Consider proposing them to be deprecated! Pruning
    > specifications that turned out to be "not the best idea" is also an
    > important part of protocol maintenance.
    > 
    >> I'm sorry but it is discrimination.
    > 
    > I really don't see it, for more information on what discrimination means
    > to people please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
    > 
    > I suspect you are using such strong words to make an appeal to emotion.
    > 
    > Kind regards,
    > 
    > Job
    > 
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 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.