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

Paul Kyzivat <> Sat, 29 July 2017 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15BF131E9A; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZ2FENUh6nkj; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5508C131E2A; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074412-0c7ff70000000b4e-61-597cf9713bf0
Received: from (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU []) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id DC.4B.02894.179FC795; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:09:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v6TL925T017318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:09:03 -0400
To: Christer Holmberg <>, Ben Campbell <>
Cc: "" <>, General Area Review Team <>, IETF MMUSIC WG <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:09:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprJKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqFv4sybS4G2HvMX8ztPsFhdmHma0 2HF3B5vF1VefWSymLn/M4sDq8evrVTaPJUt+MnnM2vmEJYA5issmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj/kab gsVKFftWn2NsYHwu3cXIySEhYCJxbu5f5i5GLg4hgR1MEpN3/WIDSQgJXGWS6O/yA7GFBYIk 7hyZwQ5iiwjESyz/v50RpIFZYBejxPOWdYwQ3d+YJFbsWcMCUsUmoCUx59B/MJtXwF7ixMOd jCA2i4CqxJytvWC2qECaxIzv15khagQlTs58AlbPKeAnsbBnO5jNLGAmMW/zQ2YIW1zi1pP5 TBC2vETz1tnMExgFZiFpn4WkZRaSlllIWhYwsqxilEvMKc3VzU3MzClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXT y80s0UtNKd3ECAl1oR2M60/KHWIU4GBU4uGVOFYTKcSaWFZcmXuIUZKDSUmU98ksoBBfUn5K ZUZicUZ8UWlOavEhRgkOZiUR3q/fgXK8KYmVValF+TApaQ4WJXHen4vV/YQE0hNLUrNTUwtS i2CyMhwcShK8zSCNgkWp6akVaZk5JQhpJg5OkOE8QMO1foAMLy5IzC3OTIfIn2LU5fg1c+sX JiGWvPy8VClx3jnfgIoEQIoySvPg5sBS1CtGcaC3hHm/g6zjAaY3uEmvgJYwAS2Z2FQJsqQk ESEl1cBYmlNvvdvCuC7Mz/fHCq2zHgf+rtz1Nm+C6wGXE8Y9FpECTK3f93rtrvnYfcHJdeHe K68PmNqf1WQV97Zwnr7q4lq/jJ8fczbxPln44vrEQNvui5knIzkyDx9dwTmf449+zhy1e2qH Cj9/fco3dZnqpSVp2h/UH37zzYiM/fjXfwH7TSe/CfasSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAJRpWqSwDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:09:08 -0000

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.


> Regards,
> Christer
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christer Holmberg []
>>> Sent: 29 July 2017 01:07
>>> To: Paul Kyzivat <>du>;
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <>rg>; IETF MMUSIC WG
>>> <>
>>> 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 []
>>> Sent: 28 July 2017 04:01
>>> To:
>>> Cc: General Area Review Team <>rg>; IETF MMUSIC WG
>>> <>
>>> 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 <​>.
>>> 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.