Christer,
On 7/30/17 4:44 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
PR created:
https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/34
This leaves RFC5763 in an inconsistent state:
- the reference to 8122 in section 5 isn't backed up with an entry in
the references section
- there is still a reference to 4572 in the introduction.
Otherwise looks right.
Thanks,
Paul
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 29 July 2017 23:38
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>; Ben Campbell <b...@nostrum.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp....@ietf.org; General Area Review Team
<gen-art@ietf.org>; IETF MMUSIC WG <mmu...@ietf.org>
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:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>;
draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp....@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; IETF MMUSIC WG
<mmu...@ietf.org>
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:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp....@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; IETF MMUSIC WG
<mmu...@ietf.org>
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
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
