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

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:07 AM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
>
>
> All the drafts I listed are in cluster 238, so it is going to take some
> time before they got published.
>
>
>
> And, we will anyway have a mix of references in cluster 238, because some
> of the drafts that were recently finalized do reference 4566bis.
>
>
>
> Having said that, I will ask the RFC editor to revert the change before
> people have a chance to give an opinion.
>
>
>
Thank you very much,

Ted


> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From: *Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 18.55
> *To: *Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> *Cc: *Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "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>
> *Subject: *Re: [MMUSIC] Reference update from 4566 to 4566bis?
>
>
>
> 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 <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
>
>