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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:26:28 -0400,
Suresh Krishnan <[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). 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.  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.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya