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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 7/29/17 2:03 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>>> 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.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07
>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>; IETF MMUSIC WG
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <[e-mail]>; IETF MMUSIC WG
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 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.
>>
>