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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,

Christer

From: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 18.55
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, bfcpbis <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
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=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]..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

[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