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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

> On 23 Oct 2018, at 20:43, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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."

Feel free to rename it draft-ietf-6man-marmite-flag ;)

Tim