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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jobs,

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Job Snijders <[e-mail]>
Fecha: miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2018, 15:52
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
CC: Job Snijders <[e-mail]>, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>, 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: Running code (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt)

    Dear Jordi,
    
    On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:08 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Then the vendors that have the power to implement everything they
    > want, definitively win, only because they are able to implement it,
    > not necessarily because it is good or bad, and the argument of the
    > implementation will be a tool to reach consensus, even if it takes
    > longer, more versions, etc. This is real life.
    
    I wouldn't position yourself as 'powerless': you can fork any Linux or
    BSD IP stacks yourself and make modifications - or you can hire people
    to do so, or work with students. We are all vendors if we choose to be -
    we all have this "power". And even if it takes longer, if drafts need to
    go through more revisions - it usually is a sign the quality and
    readability are increasing.

I was programming 45 years ago even in assembly with several CPUs and even ported a complete Real Time Unix to Motorola 6809, and did that for many years, but not recently, so I really doubt I'm a powerful programmer.
    
    > Very good ideas that don't become standards because during the ID
    > development don't get implemented (even if they will become
    > implemented once they become RFCs), lose.
    
    Can you point me to a protocol extension specification that was a
    valuable publication, specifically as RFC, but does not have any
    implementations? I see no harm for such drafts to wait for publication
    until some implementation is done.
 
I think Lee provided a list of RFCs that aren't widely implemented or implemented at all.
   
    > I'm sure there have been already many IETF documents that have been in
    > both situations. Market decides at the end. But that's the thing: at
    > the end, most of the time only when there is an RFC.
    >
    > A couple of examples I can remember, IPv6 site local (it was an RFC)
    > and draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery, different process stages, both got
    > implemented by many OS vendors and also Linux. No longer used.
    
    No longer used? Consider proposing them to be deprecated! Pruning
    specifications that turned out to be "not the best idea" is also an
    important part of protocol maintenance.

Yes, this is the contrary case. Site-local was implemented, then deprecated. ipv6-dns-discovery was only a draft, was implemented, it worked, but even do didn't reached the RFC status.
    
    > I'm sorry but it is discrimination.
    
    I really don't see it, for more information on what discrimination means
    to people please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
    
    I suspect you are using such strong words to make an appeal to emotion.

It may be a language issue. For a Spanish, discrimination (not applied as a treatment to persons), it is "select excluding", for example "discriminate traffic flows".
    
    Kind regards,
    
    Job
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.