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

Christer Holmberg <> Sat, 29 July 2017 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D64131F12; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.32
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2bPOznlbpRsZ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 484B0131CBD; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-86fff70000005f66-ea-597d00287abb
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 26.D2.24422.8200D795; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:37:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 23:37:44 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, Ben Campbell <>
CC: "" <>, General Area Review Team <>, IETF MMUSIC WG <>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:37:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbFdVFeDoTbS4NVhRYv5nafZLXbc3cFm cfXVZxaLqcsfs1is2HCA1YHV4+/7D0weS5b8ZPKYtfMJSwBzFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAldG5/6b zAVr9CvW7L7I3sA4Qa+LkZNDQsBEYv+dD4wgtpDAEUaJpp/RXYxcQPZiRomHr86xdDFycLAJ WEh0/9MGqRER8JBYMeUxK0gNs8AqRon1rQ1gzcICQRJf/65khCgKlmh6+JQRpFdEIEpiydFQ kDCLgKrE1sX3wEp4BXwlurvvskDsWsMscfTATnaQBKeAg8SdDZPBbEYBMYnvp9YwgdjMAuIS t57MZ4I4WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIWwlicYlT1hB9jILaEqs36UP0aooMaX7ITvEXkGJkzOf sExgFJ2FZOoshI5ZSDpmIelYwMiyilG0OLW4ODfdyFgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwlg5u+a27 g3H1a8dDjAIcjEo8vMEfaiKFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifB+/Q4U4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjN waIkzuuw70KEkEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgTHTd4HctF9Me1fMOBIVyh4ivGLD75Lq5z/u 7n/jnKH5S3tB+cOQF78VnzuscNUvz6zseHDZ2SaQ+2+tiLfwE1fhRwGadxa/FK7Sj1MuPrM8 QnSB+IILFztYZjuvvnaOm+/O8f3tt8/ZLdO0SKk40/pAVbX+5POVtsVyZyqVPwZ/jxC5skNw xiYlluKMREMt5qLiRABo8UXAoQIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:37:48 -0000


>>>>> 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 :)



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