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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 5/5/20 11:51 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> At least for JSEP, this was considered by the authors and they declined 
> to make the change:

Clearly in cases where 4566 is referenced rather than 4566bis we know 
that the changes in 4566bis are not pertinent to the referencing 
document. So the motivation could be one or both of the following:

1) didn't want to introduce a publishing delay waiting for 4566bis
2) didn't want to introduce a requirement to implement 4566bis.

Of those, (1) is now moot since 4566bis is now in the bundle.

That means that there is already an implementation requirement for 
*some* part of the bundle. There could still be an advantage to stick 
with 4566 for those pieces that don't need it if there is some subset of 
the package that is meaningful to implement on its own, without pulling 
in 4566bis. It should be possible to figure that out.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> 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.  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.
> 
> Were this a github issue, I would personally suggest "close with no 
> action" and leave the mix as it is; I don't see a big enough advantage 
> to take on the work.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 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
>