Hi, Based on the gen-art comments by Paul, I have merged the PR and submitted a new version (-28) of draft-dtls-sdp.
Note that the draft now replaces the reference to RFC 4572 within RFC 5763 to a reference to RFC 8122. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: 31 July 2017 19:20 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 PR updated. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu] Sent: 31 July 2017 18:03 To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmb...@ericsson.com>; 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 On 7/31/17 4:05 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Paul, > >>> 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 > > In the PR, I DO add 8122 to the reference section of 5763 :) Oh, sorry. >> - there is still a reference to 4572 in the introduction. > > I could add a statement, saying that the reference in the Introduction is > updated. That works for me. Thanks, Paul > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > 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
