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

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

>> 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. 

At least from my side (as the non-author co-chair) this wasn’t intended to apply a new requirement on this particular draft.
It was intended as a possible avenue for a draft that currently does not  have enough support in the working group to advance.

Best regards,
Ole