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

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 10/23/18 2:57 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
> RFC1264 (coincidently written by Bob) was the first document in this 
> space requiring implementations before heading to Proposed Standard
> RFC4794 obsoleted RFC1264 specifically pointing to the following text 
> RFC2026  (which postdated RFC1264)
>
>        Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
>        required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
>        Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
>        usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed
>        Standard designation.
>
>        The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
>        prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
>        materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
>        behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
>        Internet.
>
> and allows WGs to set their own rules. This is where things stand 
> right now.
>
> The current state of the art BCP is RFC7942 (which obsoleted 
> RFC6982) that allows providing optional info about existing 
> implementations and Section 4 of that document lists some of the 
> benefits of doing so.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh

Thanks for this!

Looking at recent (past two years) 6man documents. . .

draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
I think multiple interoperable implementations exist.

draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits
Specifies ICMPv6 error messages.
It's -00, but we should look for running code before publication.

draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-00
Also -00, but I'd hope to see code before publication.


RFC 8425 (was draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana)
IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information 
Option Flags
No running code applicable.

RFC 8319 (was draft-ietf-6man-maxra)
Support for Adjustable Maximum Router Lifetimes per Link
I think we had seen code; not sure, but I don't recall objections from 
implementers.

RFC 8200 (was draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis)
Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification Errata 2017-07
Decades of running code.

RFC 8201 (was draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis)
Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
Decades of running code.


RFC 8096 (was draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete)
The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete
No running code applicable.

RFC 8106 (was draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis)
IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration
We had running code.

RFC 8064 (was draft-ietf-6man-default-iids)
Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers
No running code applicable


RFC 8021 (was draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation)
Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
No running code applicable.

So, requesting running code for the ipv6only-flag isn't really a change 
in practice for 6man. We just haven't had to ask before.

Lee



>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------