Re: [Sidrops] Making ASPA AFI-Agnostic - coordination (Was: WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 03/22/2023 (Mar 22 2023))

["Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Russ,

I agree with what you say and any change that late in the process should be avoided. Said that, as long as the draft is not approved yet (final/RFC), changes might happen, even that late in the game (this is a good example) and one should be aware of that; Even though it should be avoided at all cost, but it is better than the alternative, which is to go ahead and approve it and then attempt to fix it later on – and that is messy. But that is not the point I was addressing.
My comment was in the context of changing a version number of a protocol due to changes on the wire where the draft itself is still not approved yet and RFC. Doing that (bumping the version number) because of changes in the very last moment in the approval process does set a wrong precedent – at least in my opinion. Therefore, I am not in favor of bumping the version number as Job suggested.

Oliver

From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:06 AM
To: Borchert, Oliver (Fed) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Making ASPA AFI-Agnostic - coordination (Was: WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 03/22/2023 (Mar 22 2023))
Oliver:


I agree, also 8210bis is NOT yet RFC, so we should not start treating drafts as finals, changes should be expected until the very last moment.

The later in the process that changes happen, the more approval step need to be repeated.  In this case, we will need to repeat WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and IESG Evaluation.  Of course, we want to get it right, but we should avoid this kind of re-work to the greatest extent possible.

Russ