Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]>

>
> I'd expect that even overriding RFC 5245 counts as an Update,
> because the result would be that the original RFC 5245 "MUST" requirement
> is no longer globally applicable to all uses of RFC 5245.  In other words,
> overriding RFC 5245 effectively rewrites the "MUST" to become "MUST, except
> as further specified by the consent RFC."
>

​So I agree with you that this must be called out, but I think "Updates" is
wrong for the draft's current intent.  I think what Martin has said amounts
to "We have chosen to follow RFC 5245 except as detailed in sections X and
Y, where we use a different set of messages to optimize the combination of
heartbeat and consent."  We are not updating RFC 5245 thereby, because we
are neither changing its core semantics nor offering to add a new, general
semantic to RFC 5245 (we could have made that choice, but are not doing so
now).  Instead of updating RFC 5245, in other words, we are limiting our
reference to it.

That should be done explicitly, and I think it should be called it
suffiiciently that a new spin of the draft likely needs a new round of
review.  But I don't think we are required to update RFC 5245 to get that
done.

I've referred the matter to our friendly AD, and we await her reading on
next steps on this.  In either approach, however, this will get called out.

regards,

Ted HArdie​