IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-37: (with COMMENT)

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Fri, 09 August 2019 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356D61200A3; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UmCy4GCnx8IM; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe33.google.com (mail-vs1-xe33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 301A812004E; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe33.google.com with SMTP id m8so64656395vsj.0; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DG3ZvjEpVJJw1JePhknON0NfQT4uV/T13pzb3FC/rSw=; b=Q4jpa2lgbdwVt4+ES8tUHmRCQT/Hr7toKi/4KMsR4ROyImbJesnTa05llBTJPfkbSC 6+UwP4ursaevKvAyh5i78f9ffm1lszg78cpTzHM1UcH9QaAAvEH2j1S9I9SwZDkILCd5 +YIlyaTlbVV5PDBKHg9OFpBNspIF44j09e1fWc8i8QQJSc+UHGcoPB6T+7eXhc9Hw+A1 jgUJvPiituUNUbw/TqiYzZkoivLqaRhMIulYaDsIxujQ1r/emW2/uWFdVEFg1a9LFz6V Bpxqb3G1B+VPmyyFiHqW8qQ8imtPTQv+CNIV6mOxCICHnGLMNiL7qkoZpwis1A9nEkkW B4VQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DG3ZvjEpVJJw1JePhknON0NfQT4uV/T13pzb3FC/rSw=; b=P9oKiMsftb3sx6nksbZCHFQ3EZnsxuW7MMnLqcoefQwxM0knae5jE8gzaaQ/ENz/ww pPPZ3F/6ifyQmJESr44G/sYIyoCuigH7bN98eeRBcUuLpe2F+BiL9TTszrH/f/jevuo9 OiXx8Nf5fFBzjrkCh6MkDmx3Vj0v3iswhJOb1Dgx5r2XLqV5ZqvBiVqmt9IQjHCxSzEL 8LDZiYZaxy2CfpmdsVIqUjVw4svcgHlLdggO71zjg9EyShi/mrZWN2EgzTzgteXVss/e mxoI7AGOISwXmTuFJe+erKTADgo0KSoMZ9vD/I+uGxTR3k5585TVZYVkQMocND1UN9DO fOEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7LXhJdX5aRiG5YSA3NcXGB/tkaNDhG497vswQAn06V2zsE6bB BIjQi8aCM7nZc53vl6iKZph5eOlGLPPW0b8VfNs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqww1sdJQ9NhRUkJjnaR06E/iqLNe6g0TwMrEmlczhRc/mcZbt0Ff4v17aHEPAJyaltXNBpgdJgUkqsnox3zzv4=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea44:: with SMTP id r4mr12877802vso.86.1565323385240; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156502552845.24515.11157901358870690278.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <HE1PR07MB31613F486F6B67B1A1F0453093DA0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <747b0dc1-5a12-3751-c82b-20a03d14015a@cisco.com> <b5abdd85-05b9-01e2-8988-cacd79ae1003@nostrum.com> <17F1DCE7-D1FD-4B80-B793-A0DC84494DFA@rfc-editor.org> <A4AEE671-B78D-4720-9BC9-C80C56D32A31@ericsson.com> <b3645fcf-f50f-d1b4-12b4-7aca1c9f4d05@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <b3645fcf-f50f-d1b4-12b4-7aca1c9f4d05@cisco.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:02:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGT3rp9s47h_4ZDDiiJDNjxqPVZ5TWA0FjeBDN2OvBWcQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "jdrosen@jdrosen.net" <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000056008f058fa74014"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/1QNlX4su_UdvheD0-P4sj55L4J8>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-37: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 04:03:10 -0000

Hello All

 We submitted version 38 addressing the IESG reviews. This version does say
it obsoletes rfc5245 since it ranked highest in the responses but also
includes the explanation showing the differences.

Thanks
Suhas

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:04 AM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 8/8/19 10:41 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Thank You for your input!
>
>     >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >>>> COMMENT:
>     >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> 1) First I have a processing question for the IESG (and maybe the RFC editor) but it might be just me not knowing this:
>     >>>>> As I understand it, RFC5245 was spilt up into RFC8445 and this document, however, I find it a bot odd that both documenst
>     >>>>> obsolete RFC5245. Is that what we usually do? Did we have this case before? Is that the right thing to do?
>     >>>> That's a good question. I hope the chairs and/or the AD can give some guidance.
>     >>>>
>     >>> I'm not sure either. Maybe Adam knows ?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I don't think there's any issue with the situation. I've copied Heather to see if she sees any issues with two documents obsoleting the same one.
>     >>
>     >
>     > It’s not a problem, though I would expect that RFC8445 and draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp explain how/why they each obsolete RFC5245.
>
>     There will be text regarding how/why 5245 was obsoleted in either case.
>
>     So, what people want to do? Does ice-sip-sdp obsolete 5245 or not?
>
> I believe it does.
>
> -- Flemming (as individual)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>     -Heather
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing listmmusic@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email