PR created: https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/34
Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2017 23:38 To: Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>; Ben Campbell <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team <[email protected]>; IETF MMUSIC WG <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27 Hi, >>>>> Regarding the reference to RFC 4572, the new text in section >>>>> 10.2.1 references RFC 4572. We earlier agreed we were not going to update >>>>> that text, and keep an informative reference to RFC 4572. >>>> >>>> OK, I guess I remember that now. Is it considered acceptable to >>>> issue a new document with a reference to an obsolete document when it >>>> isn't to highlight a difference from the current document? >>>> >>>> Since this is a review for the teleconference, I'll just leave that for >>>> the IESG folk to decide. >>> >>> As far as I know, there’s no hard and fast rule about this. It >>> really depends on whether the difference between the new and >>> obsolete dependencies are material to the draft. I do think we (i.e. >>> the IESG) would favor referencing the new RFC, but would be open to >>> arguments about why a WG chose to reference the obsolete version >>> >>> Does anyone recall the reasoning in this instance? >> >> Just to make sure we are on the same page, there are TWO references to RFC >> 4572 in the draft. >> >> The FIRST reference is in section 8, where it is used to reference an >> example in RFC 4572. The same example exists in RFC 8122, so we can change >> that reference. >> >> The SECOND reference is in section 10.2.1, as part of the updated >> text for RFC 5763. Now, RFC 5763 references RFC 4572 in 4 difference >> places, so if we change the >reference to RFC 8122 in the text >> updated by the draft we would also have to do it in every other place. That >> was the reason we decided not to do it (I have no problem doing it that's >> what IESG wants, though). > > Thanks for pointing that out. I just looked at that to size up the > situation. Of those four references, three of them are in section 5 > and will all be replaced by the new text in this document. The remaining > reference is simply a general one in the introduction. And then in addition > there is the actual reference text in the normative references. > > ISTM that it would be sufficient to update the reference in the new > text for section 5 and then add a general statement to update all references > to 4572 to refer to 8122. > > But again, this is really an IESG issue at this point. Or, we could just go ahead and do it :) Regards, Christer > > > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07 >>> To: Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected] >>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>; IETF MMUSIC WG >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of >>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27 Hi Paul, Thanks for the review. I'll >>> fix references. >>> Regards, >>> Christer >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]>; IETF MMUSIC WG >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of >>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this >>> draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents >>> being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction >>> from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the >>> draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27 >>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat >>> Review Date: 2017-07-07 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-24 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-15 >>> Summary: >>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be >>> fixed before publication. >>> (These nits were reported by IdNits. I apologize for not noticing >>> these during my Last Call review.) >>> Issues: >>> Major: 0 >>> Minor: 0 >>> Nits: 2 >>> (1) NIT: Unused Reference: 'RFC5245' is defined on line 1065, but no >>> explicit reference was found in the text This is now redundant because all >>> the references in the text have been changed to draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis. >>> (2) NIT: Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): >>> RFC >>> 4572 This is now obsolete because it has been replaced by RFC8122. This >>> draft should now be referencing that. >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
