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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>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.

I claim that the reason we chose to not reference 4566bis was because of the assumption that the rest of the RTCWEB-related stuff was going to be published before 4566bis. I am happy to be proven wrong on that assumption, though :)

>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.

I fully agree – it should not be a search/replace exercise.

In the case of the drafts below, the references were mostly in the syntax section, for definitions of “token” etc. And, those have not changed from 4566 to 4566bis.

Also, I am NOT suggesting that everyone has to do the reference update. As I said in my other reply, we already have a mix of 4566/4566bis references, and many specifications probably anyway reference both if we count explicit and implicit references.

Regards,

Christer



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:21 AM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic