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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.

In other words: if this is what you want for ipv6only-flag, then
I'd like the same rule for all the other draft-ietf-6man documents
from now on, please.

   Brian

> 
> 	 https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/
> 
> That certainly *used* to be one of the big differences between the
> ISO/OSI standardization process and the Internet standardization
> process...
> 
> Steinar Haug, AS2116
> .
>