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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/23/18 8:26 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Sander Steffann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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 think that you might also expect bigger divergence between
implementations and specs. If something is implemented, as is deemed as
working well, it is likely that it will be committed and used before we
agree its a good idea. Or that what gets deployed is some draft version
of the spec as opposed to what ends up in the actual RFC. Just me
thinking out loud.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492