Re: [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I can update the reference and submit a new version. It’s an easy task and, as Adam said, will avoid discussions about outdated references.

Regards,

Christer

From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 24 August 2018 01:42
To: Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

To be clear, the datachannel document has not yet been through IESG review. Alissa, who was the responsible AD for the document during its IETF last call, indicated (in the document history): "We are holding this document before proceeding to IESG evaluation to await progress on the RTCWEB security document, which is referenced." I have seen no reason to revisit her decision. I'd prefer to avoid discussions in IESG review about outdated references, so I will request that the authors update references before the document is added to a telechat.

/a



On 8/23/18 12:45 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote:
Hi Adam,

Adding Christer here since he is the editor of the datachannel draft

The datachannel document went through IETF last call in July 2016 on the -13 version and -14 version is the update based on comments from the different reviews.
The document was parked since it was waiting for normative referenced documents that were in progress I think that the last one is draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg that went to publication now (BTW I volunteered to be the editor of this document to help conclude the CLUE work)
So if it is really important to change the reference this can be for the RFC editor in my view

Roni Even


From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:27 AM
To: Roni Even (A)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion
Subject: Re: [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

On 8/23/18 12:14 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote:



As for the CLUE documents I see no problem with changing the reference. As can be seen bellow the references are informative and in my personal view it does not matter if the documents will reference RFC5245 since RFC8445 obsolete RFC5245 anyhow.
How do you see the change to reference RFC8445 happening. Is it a note to the RFC editor?



For both CLUE documents, this plan involves asking the authors to make the update, along with any other IETF last-call comments they receive, prior to placing them on an IESG telechat.

/a