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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

One small addition on the relationship between the two drafts …

Thanks, --David

From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:09 PM
To: Heather Flanagan
Cc: Sandy Ginoza; [e-mail]; IESG; tsvwg-chairs
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been overtaken by draft in IESG Evaluation - what now? :-)


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi, Heather,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:49 PM Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]<mailto:[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.
[David>] In addition. draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos will acquire a normative reference to draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb as a result of these edits.  Fortunately, that will *not* make draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb 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]<mailto:[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