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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:44 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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.

Ooooh ooooh, you mean that if I dig in my heels, we can make C238 take
even more time?! "That's a nice cluster of documents you have there...
be a shame if anything were to happen to it...." :-P

>
> If this is causing substantial heartburn,

Nah, just seemed a bit silly -- I was unaware of the history; 'm fine
leaving it as it is...

W

> 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
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf