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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 May 2020 15:55 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 7FA113A0845; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:55:44 -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 XxEBQMBRZO5U; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (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 650973A082F; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id c3so2043780otp.8; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:55:42 -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=C1bOyUaXH3YLKgL9iJvFHgNQWoPs5GoYZumw0h2vOGg=; b=cRBYaWSEEooLA7h75RldT6PZpstpEFnSvSdL0u4tn5Opuw/kOqdZ5kF2YuQ7gHd20G sIoribzLb+7fpe4PzGeYdBEfnBZBnd5YNydXHIxI/sLD2hND1gIqdiJo4swunovxnmns XsQi/Wok9YnVwGp1TcGdYm8AIVeYHimCu6mTenlfeI7ZpnyAIdiiiranQHrNiXzgStTp QPrzmF1Dit4L+zLmsylfN8YhrfuNjDDW+qGmDmVZnjnecFpCaUd3S1n5N6pkM4UdHxXJ po2l94QsBB5/LkrlRdzD7eucfnqfECPztw8j2F5fuzOdHQ3uAlykkgN5oMq1znwuqXe/ yYug==
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=C1bOyUaXH3YLKgL9iJvFHgNQWoPs5GoYZumw0h2vOGg=; b=uHFypPftcbe/vjkcUc/CvR+ypvcCqwYm8P+pgWPUW1ZCVEpr7y1gTkRu4sC6vU+o+r Anv6wGzdhyDnD8iH0WdDtXwBU8ookNjuSldJfRAqJbKgi0lXBREd7+VFoMqwWaNTLhdE guRA8GeGrfPGi5M1Dmjn7QfWLWOKdblPCEo31M2DioCgxx6+uQt0VJUzUZhqFqSXCAVK 5S5sTXFoOWHr9c2wrr2KOxgXLaJcUdXxS00czw1dnItMp3Y2PHwbmzcKYnhLyBm/xCHO VmD7rtTfXgSLsuyNyLy5VDJ6ZPtMAgQCZPXfUwVRtHW3wvyGv9f1jt3QMYdSOCsCSWor 5+kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pubn6jpsE5PVBSPTee2XEsCsB77qxj8/UR5jm7R407rFDKZrSIcR TrpK9uRzlaD5PeVB8jae8CJ9MBW7JfAWvYCPasEP/9Ti
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJsH6ZPFFIkCW7m9KAFNV0OW2ka9+1qOmvOZa/Qe22HiTExMHLEPx99iUapE5Y0cMuuttaO8aR3mnQkypD0/O4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1b63:: with SMTP id d3mr2642060ote.269.1588694141638; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12B81692-4EA9-4AC2-8F46-DE3E1A39BE8C@ericsson.com> <f93ff4b8-3485-893c-e2ed-316babf8fe05@cisco.com> <0F8EC912-54F2-4D39-805B-3E48D79B1C78@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <0F8EC912-54F2-4D39-805B-3E48D79B1C78@ericsson.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 08:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAnZCgvoThyGZKe-i0f5teCKTHw2ANhcxguNS3AnEftAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas=40cisco.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="000000000000f81c7805a4e8ad65"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Pis-9W06eOL6oaHG4zKv3TFGgoE>
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 15:55:45 -0000

This appears to have crossed my message in the air.  I respectfully request
that you revert this request to the RFC editors, on the basis I gave in my
mail.  If you don't do that, I'm afraid I will, and we will have a mess.

Please also recall that time zones are a thing, and that some of the people
you wanted to review this just started their day a small amount of time
ago; generally speaking, less than a day's review for a suggested change to
this cluster is not reasonable.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:51 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> >Makes sense (as long as none of those references were explicitly to 4566
> rather than 4566bis).
>
> Sure.
>
> But, at least in the drafts listed below, I did not find anything that
> would have been 4566-specific, so I have asked the RFC editor to update the
> references.
>
> I don’t think we should publish RFCs with references to specifications
> that are obsoleted from day one…
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> -- 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
>
> mmusic@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>