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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ole,

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I did not mean your response at all :-). There were other mails in the thread that implied this (and I do not fault them either for asking).

> It was intended as a possible avenue for a draft that currently does not  have enough support in the working group to advance.

I think that makes perfect sense to try that possibility. I also think an implementation might be helpful here as RFC2026 eloquently states:

      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. 

Thanks
Suresh