Subject: [Ice] Status of draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:40:59 -0600

[And to further prove it, Ben just sent this to the wrong IESG list. I 
blame autocomplete this time. Resending correctly. Please send any 
replies to this version.]

Subtitle: Ben's an idiot.

When we originally did the IETF LC for 
draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness, we did so as if it were intended as 
informational, while the correct status was BCP. I agreed to re-run the 
LC as a BCP. Otherwise I think we dealt with all the comments.

But when I re-ran the last call, I got my wires crossed and misstated 
the status _again_.

So at this point, I think the right thing to do is yet another LC with 
the correct status. I think it reasonable to shorten this to 1 week, 
since the draft has been heavily reviewed already, and we are 
essentially asking one question.

Does anyone object to that course?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 23:52:45 +0000

> Does anyone object to that course?

I don't object. OTOH, given the time of year and the fact
that there's little difference in 1 vs 2 weeks now, I'd
say that a shorter LC has no real benefit right now so is
maybe not worth it.

S.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:31:12 +0000

> On 12 Dec 2016, at 21:40, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> [And to further prove it, Ben just sent this to the wrong IESG list. I blame autocomplete this time. Resending correctly. Please send any replies to this version.]
> 
> When we originally did the IETF LC for draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness, we did so as if it were intended as informational, while the correct status was BCP. I agreed to re-run the LC as a BCP. Otherwise I think we dealt with all the comments.
> 
> But when I re-ran the last call, I got my wires crossed and misstated the status _again_.
> 
> So at this point, I think the right thing to do is yet another LC with the correct status. I think it reasonable to shorten this to 1 week, since the draft has been heavily reviewed already, and we are essentially asking one question.
> 

No objections.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:16:18 -0600

Hi, Ben,

On Dec 13, 2016 07:52, "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

What Stephen said.

I've certainly done second last calls as "does anyone object, with a week
timeout", but the question is whether shortening the timeout to a week in
this case helps with anything.

Spencer

S.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:21:36 -0600

On 13 Dec 2016, at 21:16, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

[...]

>> &gt; Does anyone object to that course?
>
>
>>
> I've certainly done second last calls as "does anyone object, with a 
> week timeout", but the question is whether shortening the timeout to a 
> week in this case helps with anything.
>
>

The only advantage I see is finishing the LC before the holidays. Or at 
least before _my_ holidays, which makes it more likely I can act quickly 
on completion.

A 2 week last call would complete the week between Christmas and New 
Years, which would probably offer no more practical review time than a 1 
week LC.  (If I were to launch a _normal_ LC right now, I would probably 
give it 3 weeks due to holidays.)

Ben.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:06:34 -0600

Hi, Ben,

On Dec 14, 2016 12:21 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]

The only advantage I see is finishing the LC before the holidays. Or at
least before _my_ holidays, which makes it more likely I can act quickly on
completion.

A 2 week last call would complete the week between Christmas and New Years,
which would probably offer no more practical review time than a 1 week LC.
(If I were to launch a _normal_ LC right now, I would probably give it 3
weeks due to holidays.

That all works for me. It doesn't sound likely that an additional week of
delay helps much at all.

Spencer

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:23:38 -0600

The repeat-repeat LC has completed without further comment. Given that 
the IESG discussion explicitly assumed the BCP status, I plan to approve 
this version for publication.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 12 Dec 2016, at 15:40, Ben Campbell wrote:

[...]

> informational, while the correct status was BCP. I agreed to re-run 
> the LC as a BCP. Otherwise I think we dealt with all the comments.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice