Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been overtaken by draft in IESG Evaluation - what now? :-)
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD46129AA0; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:09:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qLzWEgZoZ3Hc; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0A46128701; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id v7so18825827lfd.2; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:09:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G2rYT/ik1yvukcUWenS2F369fnHakAw/+ILDyIn1IKY=; b=IYnBBgd6wxKt4vrfpfAO/mnmGwX/KRJgUcZOf8wnbQ04AEigTO0fsbtRB/DGTMUW2X TgiA3TaJLPn5TD7vM2gkzocFr3/tzvIXq9a4IVLmIkQ9UslKuzbDPcE2gaCw5xbG6K49 1t17m9KlgRacIdG4CdHkp5bbMB5510p1rbQUMV4nUqtT7eKe/ftXYo2hnK+XlqAbAgBJ K21HqLTDyke1LwfewVj93Kpheqrz7km7rjy1jYSuLADg6I4U9XjqF5YiCCEPnpao/LN0 pkXbJifPVWlU2GhJAE6XjvWeYnDkSPUh5N+iYRw9daa0SiqCitv6tLsLZL3Z06ccw9+7 0ecw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G2rYT/ik1yvukcUWenS2F369fnHakAw/+ILDyIn1IKY=; b=Wo9LM6eysma4L0v5ZPFKxe5B+W78KiVRsD0c/If/wjEyvWNDZTQehMmNCo31RyI51C doYsNDQbMZRiEv+VpalLHfkugiJ5VkYCoMM/UwNPRNGoQnCWGvzr+DQtj7hcWaE9gM2J er5hv11i4HIUkAN8f7Or6RaPwwuKUSp/uJDpthLyS6PZyYU7/xSPBeEEA9azeKLOQBNY Cv/5LRIyDbn3LuNPoAtJmeE23ecsYn0kTb8rncC77oc3vi3/zIYq/GCp2C3nKYnModS8 tCd2NkRUBhcDM+TPmZmeniud4j2srv5i9oagHFD8v5TWXK7ICl5ncHkj/9DzWl8TPB1o Vuhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZQSUzOvESzqVS9AEP6jrfseF+flBnKkGbHcBim4UXKo+IhOxaF Lw6EA9MdiAWJUaaHoUuzLJFTBmoDBiV/5Sufrrg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYPe5gAhaBKLj7wubqu2UJphjY/EGeBrdaQ2q4Hx7xaFeSN7mIYyOZUOFEKUN33/IrEkUn9Ot4RsKVoOQIPNNE=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:5209:: with SMTP id m9mr20834146lfb.51.1550700562531; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:09:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKKJt-eYF+MhUqvOtRaHkhO8=texevfYi9rgcTPjiseasw1xsA@mail.gmail.com> <F21F402F-ED73-4072-A7D5-F3915BBD2FEF@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <F21F402F-ED73-4072-A7D5-F3915BBD2FEF@rfc-editor.org>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:09:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fYrSo8KQUyybWqDqKCvWf7hqhguuZTxk8Vz_HAAUuVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ecab805825a9c0c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6001S1SXMIYzbobm_yX7v4HHAbo>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been overtaken by draft in IESG Evaluation - what now? :-)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:09:28 -0000
Hi, Heather, On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:49 PM Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Spencer, > > I know it’s rude to answer a question with a question… but I have a few > questions. > > Draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb is not in our queue yet, right? Will it become > part of C238 when it is in our queue? > draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb is on the telechat agenda for tomorrow. I believe the only connection with draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos are the instructions in Section 12 - so if those instructions are carried out by the RFC Editor, draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb shouldn't need to be part of C238. > > When the text in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos is changed, will that text > then be removed from draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb? > That would make sense to me. > Will there still be any kind of Updates relationship between > draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb and draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos when this change is > made? > I don't believe so. The theory I'm using is that TSVWG is changing the text of a draft that hasn't been issued as an RFC yet (with instructions in another draft that will be removed), so no kind of Updates relationship would exist - there won't be any text in draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb that updates draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos. > > If draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb is not in our queue and will not be part of > C238, then I think an RFC Editor Note would be very useful for that draft. > If we haven’t started editing draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos, then an RFC > Editor Note there would be useful to. I defer to Sandy, though, as to what > the editors will find most useful to make sure this change is captured > during the editing process. > Hi, Sandy :-) I can add the RFC Editor Note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb. Could you let me know if I should also add an RFC Editor note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos? Thanks! Spencer Thanks, > Heather > > On Feb 20, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < > spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Heather, > > The IESG has https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/ in > IESG Evaluation for this week's telechat, and this draft > updates draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos, which I'm sure you recognize because > it's in Cluster C238, and has been hanging in the RFC Editor queue for some > number of years. > > We THINK we don't want to have draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos published as an > RFC and immediately have another RFC published that updates it - right? > > We THINK the instructions in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09#section-12 > describe the changes to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos clearly. > > What is the proper way for the IESG to tell the RFC Editor to go ahead and > make the changes to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos? > > Our guesses include, but are not limited to, > > - Adding an RFC Editor Note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb (the draft with > instructions about updating draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos) > - Adding an RFC Editor Note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos (the draft > to be updated) > - Sending an e-mail to the RFC Editor requesting that the text changes > be applied to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos before it is published > > but I bet that you know what will make live easiest for you and the RFC > editor staff ... please let me know. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > Spencer > > >
- [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been o… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has be… Heather Flanagan
- Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has be… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has be… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has be… Sandy Ginoza
- Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has be… Spencer Dawkins at IETF