Re: [MMUSIC] 4572 moving forward

On 11/2/16 10:21 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it would be weird to reference something which is obsoleted. We don't intend to do that for SDP, ICE etc either afaik.

I agree it is weird. My point is that it isn't a tragedy, and will do no 
harm. If it turns out to be too hard to pull back some document and fix 
it, that isn't necessary.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards.
>
> Christer
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 2 Nov 2016, at 15.40, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/2/16 4:13 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The suggested obsolete approach looks ok to me.
>>>
>>> Note, however, that such approach would have impact on drafts currently
>>> referencing both RFC4572 and draft-4572-update.
>>
>> While it certainly would be best to clean up the references, AFAICT there would be no real harm in referencing both. With the change to "obsoletes" in the newer document it would clearly preempt the reference to the older one.
>>
>>    Thanks,
>>    Paul
>>
>>> Straight from my head, at
>>> least the following drafts would be impacted:
>>>
>>> RTCWEB: draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
>>> STIR:   draft-ietf-stir-passport (NOTE: The draft is already in IESG
>>> evaluation state)
>>>
>>> In MMUSIC, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes references RFC 4572.
>>> Should we replace it with the to-be-publishd-RFC?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 02/11/16 05:36, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2 November 2016 at 10:52, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>>>> We discussed two paths 1) split to two drafts, one with update for
>>>>> multiple fingerprints and separate extension that adds sha256. 2) just
>>>>> obsolete 4572 with new RFC. Martin prefers the obsolete path and I can
>>>>> live with that so that¹s our proposal. To make this happen quickly, I
>>>>> converted 4572 to markdown and you can find it in the master branch at
>>>>> https://github.com/fluffy/4572bis and took the changes from Christer's
>>>>> draft and turned them in to a PR for bis draft. If you like to review on
>>>>> GitHub, you can check out PR at
>>>>> https://github.com/fluffy/4572bis/pull/1/files If you just want to see
>>>>> what the final draft would look like, it is attached to this email.
>>>>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> The other thing here is that we don't want to touch anything else in
>>>> this document.  What Cullen has updated is exactly what we have agreed
>>>> to change, with the text that we have agreed on.  We should not expand
>>>> the scope just because the form of the document has changed.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>