Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Sat, 29 July 2017 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 25860131F08; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 r8TFAcGw0-gf; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 0AE7F131E80; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v6T4WoU5020038 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:32:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0e715ef-322a-e060-2d1e-86ca9650df2a@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:32:49 -0500
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <73BB780D-2A87-4C6E-BF8A-9976BCB953E1@nostrum.com>
References: <fb41df24-ffeb-2cdd-6233-858f886ee6ec@alum.mit.edu> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCA1616@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCA1662@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <e0e715ef-322a-e060-2d1e-86ca9650df2a@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/AwyJVDdkuYgqSoxXLQ2hec5K0RM>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:33:02 -0000


> On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 7/28/17 7:23 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 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?

Thanks!

Ben.


> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> Regards,
>> Christer
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
>> Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07
>> To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>du>; draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp.all@ietf.org
>> Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>rg>; IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@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:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01
>> To: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp.all@ietf.org
>> Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>rg>; IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@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.
>