Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-41

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for addressing my review.

Any document that is required in order to understand and/or implement a
document should be a Normative Reference. If your document obsoletes
another document, how can that document be anything but a Normative
Reference? And yes, my understanding is that you can make a normative
reference to an obsolete document in this case.

Of course, this is still an editorial comment that I am sure the RFC Editor
will sort out.

Regards,

Dan



On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:33 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:41:53AM -0800, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker
> wrote:
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review result: Ready
> >
> > 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 treat these comments just
> > like any other last call comments.
> >
> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >
> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-51
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review Date: 2021-02-16
> > IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-22
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: Ready
> >
> > This document updates RFC6347 (DTLS 1.2) with version 1.3 of the
> protocol. It's
> > a clear, well structured and mature document, justifying the time and
> number of
> > successive iterations spent in writing it.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > Is really [RFC6347] which this document OBSOLETEs only an Informative
> Reference?
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I don't really understand this comment, though -- the only other choice is
> to be a normative reference, but we couldn't make a normative reference to
> an obsolete document.  Was there something in particular that you thought
> required 6437 to be a normative reference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>