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 :)
>- there is still a reference to 4572 in the introduction.
I could add a statement, saying that the reference in the Introduction is
updated.
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
