Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been overtaken by draft in IESG Evaluation - what now? :-)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Heather,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:49 PM Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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
>
>
>