> On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On 7/28/17 7:23 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> 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? Thanks! Ben. > > Thanks, > Paul > >> 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
