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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>>>> 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?
>> 
>> Just to make sure we are on the same page, there are TWO references to RFC 4572 in the draft.
>> 
>> The FIRST reference is in section 8, where it is used to reference an example in RFC 4572. The same example 
>> exists in RFC 8122, so we can change that reference.
>> 
>> The SECOND reference is in section 10.2.1, as part of the updated text for RFC 5763. Now, RFC 5763 
>> references RFC 4572 in 4 difference places, so if we change the >reference to RFC 8122 in the text 
>> updated by the draft we would also have to do it in every other place. That was the reason we decided 
>> not to do it (I have no problem doing it that's what IESG wants, though).
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I just looked at that to size up the situation. Of those four references, three of them are
> in section 5 and will all be replaced by the new text in this document. The remaining reference is simply a general one
> in the introduction. And then in addition there is the actual reference text in the normative references.
>
> ISTM that it would be sufficient to update the reference in the new text for section 5 and then add a general statement 
> to update all references to 4572 to refer to 8122.
>
> But again, this is really an IESG issue at this point.

Or, we could just go ahead and do it :)

Regards,

Christer

> 
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07
>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>; IETF MMUSIC WG 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>; IETF MMUSIC WG 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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.
>>
>