Re: [Ice] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-pac-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 22 April 2020 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837B33A0AE7; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.404
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 zd5uiUzzvPeP; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C68F3A0AE3; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 03MLiIve021118 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:44:19 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1587591860; bh=PLrVjVKRQm1lXbzzux7ETYYtf3gy6sgFvSyft1qMs6Q=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DN2vUdIdrzDRUfI9HAT8LgA0cke9U/UiO4yw+xM/GmwBDPeaLz0P7ijIBL6WJzYNa kHLchJNnCucKZiu68hBCOi+qJNa2IDvkF+DVNBGiT+7bcPKepGms0hEFWCovzgbo8l hz+pc26sBPsUQ6lmzNZ2h59Tzlde3FTeXHywzYic=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: nohlmeier@mozilla.com, ice-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ice-pac@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org
References: <158758611860.2438.3742561903738438331@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <b712fcd3-4f7f-cc7f-2797-7b26174347d8@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:44:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <158758611860.2438.3742561903738438331@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/LqcRFRRVq017X8mFVru6bCf0ybc>
Subject: Re: [Ice] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-pac-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" <ice.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ice/>
List-Post: <mailto:ice@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 21:44:25 -0000

On 4/22/2020 3:08 PM, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote:
> Like Eric (and others) I think making a change to trickle before it becomes an
> RFC would be as better idea than Update'ing it in this way.


To be clear, trickle has been through AUTH48, and the only reason it 
isn't RFC 8452 _right now_ is because we decided, back in 2018, to pull 
it back and make sure it had a number that was consecutive with other, 
related Cluster 238 documents.

If this is causing substantial heartburn, I would propose that the best 
remedy -- even if only because it highlights how pointlessly 
bureaucratic this objection is -- would be to ask the RPC to publish the 
post-AUTH48 trickle document _right now_ with the next available RFC 
number and then let ice-pac update it. The collateral damage will be 
that it's not published alongside documents that it really should be; 
but (IMHO) that's less worrisome than pulling it out of the queue after 
AUTH48 to do additional surgery on it.

/a