IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

sthaug@nethelp.no Fri, 19 October 2018 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75ED6130DF9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXkCjeU-Fc_W for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC15130DEA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFA6E604A; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:37:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:37:39 +0200
Message-Id: <20181019.223739.271916573.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Cc: job@ntt.net, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-03.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <3beca72e-19c5-10af-02e5-c21a90d77100@gmail.com>
References: <CAFU7BASO_ByzbanhLKnWV280O_fASd-8W+ujpj3sN6d2-whw2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-u7aAPwAOcixYvt2On=-o_8X25GhqdXTfA+tWRC1o2XA@mail.gmail.com> <3beca72e-19c5-10af-02e5-c21a90d77100@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 26 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yFnfL-r5XkocODJ64Ar-2GIBv8E>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:37:43 -0000

> 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"?

	 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email