[sipcore] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi,
Thank you for your comments.
You are right with your comment " How can RFC3455 be updated if it is obsoleted by RFC7315?" since 3455 is not valid anymore. So I go along with the definition already used within the draft.

1. I changed the wording:
The following updates are needed in order to fix the misalignments
   between [RFC7315] and [RFC3455] :

The following updates are needed in order to fix the misalignments that occurred when [RFC3455] was updated and obsoleted by [RFC7315]:

2. Abstract change was done

Thank you and Best Regards

Roland
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Juni 2025 12:16
An: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 2.2
   The following updates are needed in order to fix the misalignments
   between [RFC7315] and [RFC3455] :

How can RFC3455 be updated if it is obsoleted by RFC7315?

** Idnits reports:
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC7976, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.