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

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
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic