Re: [MMUSIC] Reference update from 4566 to 4566bis?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 6BD6C3A0898; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 pOvQIXEU4dbG; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (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 A77773A0854; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id 72so2076168otu.1; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:07 -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=zGVckwYgskODFhBABBTVRLx4XqwdwyGF69tsg4X2P3Q=; b=ul/sGWzBI6kX0f79OF84RknkTrO+/wTMajjWOATdQ6hyiQ8zSgijCyU9DuRCnkK2AZ HKY4JeTYO9jbDcloqs3XEEPmZxmNLYokBfvUmMUJJJZzq2hbG7uNMv9Y+hubqaDmbBLq IUDT7Z3K+c2qmuqYqfClXA8ZFiF1eE1NONHQMGuKHlziHno1vgjXj2o9A0yfkwCzOcuf HJPuNX/JTykQYJo1I+FBA6iQEgd0yLCzRRMaRzwL6cAtYQraTnsZrnsKPy+AxqBiwa0A aCDwnrkJk4hCNBApTuQAyvbecaUylDAEhE48buyqmYSXfOPACEmgS28WAQTltu2I4xGB DvSg==
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=zGVckwYgskODFhBABBTVRLx4XqwdwyGF69tsg4X2P3Q=; b=gWpfuj8SYbqCl5TFtk2/n0iMJ5/nBegRfHJwT3PkIRo5NKKuLx+iCyL6wX5j3NxfmW L1Pav98o1jX3zldBTaGUUyLqmxxzduDNZXDGB3xSAB2/9rkJlCB0OsGIvzUrZc6J6Kdh Lqjg3VhGlLdS3RjvpJkDwLho0HRCWqQFGwYVOOL1Z8gE1nN0+Y9IbIU1J1NoHEUSv+DR yeU9WeMNpZjxU/nYduiEEh8uz5SQxPHRruDhkDhJ1irQ3xMQzYUjEFCkC68QUD0X73qP 5xIt8jwARuaZNUWRBFlh/YpezvkwkSpVRyVE3Kzf3bcOvLJI5Y8+u/YPSVtOkwYTZQ6W PZlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub9dftOm9JRsnT+tkWjg3rmZefZLrA69Jryp1F1/tANQ0r/kX77 0KnIZPfE+NrEZoumvIJb7M1/uw2QyQOHrDCCQ/yixxWs0Lk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLRt4ZwZi93bkqnRzRisI9SBJAgR+GmuDFxOwa9JdutZd60SY7u2b5r4EJCxA2QmSLoaB5PA1byY2MPcNLP4Nw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1687:: with SMTP id k7mr3128323otr.49.1588693925995; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12B81692-4EA9-4AC2-8F46-DE3E1A39BE8C@ericsson.com> <f93ff4b8-3485-893c-e2ed-316babf8fe05@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <f93ff4b8-3485-893c-e2ed-316babf8fe05@cisco.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 08:51:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMA_pVqaUk7XM80F+G-8MtGgj2Nh+pmFCb2GPJYLH6rXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, Suhas Nandakumar <snandaku@cisco.com>, "pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dab4d05a4e8a1d4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/3-ENw8qsQqjGwvh9KfC-81iRruM>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Reference update from 4566 to 4566bis?
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52:16 -0000

At least for JSEP, this was considered by the authors and they declined to
make the change:

https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/562

I personally assume that we'd need to confirm for each one that references
RFC 4566 that it was not a deliberate choice and that the internal detailed
references do not need an update.  That latter, I think, is why we should
avoid it; it is not necessarily the case that the structure of bis will
allow us to make one-for-one swaps.

Were this a github issue, I would personally suggest "close with no action"
and leave the mix as it is; I don't see a big enough advantage to take on
the work.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:21 AM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Makes sense (as long as none of those references were explicitly to 4566
> rather than 4566bis).
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Flemming (as individual)
>
> On 5/5/20 4:34 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Some of the drafts in Cluster 238 that reference RFC 4566, while other
> reference draft-4566bis-
>
>
>
> Since draft-4566bis is also part of Cluster 238, and is in the RFC
> editor’s queue, should we update the references to draft-4566bis?
>
>
>
> The change would be done **at least** to the following drafts (I will
> only check the ones I author/co-author):
>
>
>
> MMUSIC WG:
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp
>
>
>
> BFCPbis:
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-27
>
>
>
> One of the reason many drafts do not reference 4566bis is because the
> drafts were going to be finalized long before 4566bis. But, as that is now
> not the case….
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-attributes references both 4566 (normative) and
> 4566bis (informative). In my opinion we could make 4566bis normative there,
> but I’d like to hear what Suhas thinks.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing listmmusic@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>