Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>]

> On 24 Jan 2015, at 00:24, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> What about:
>> 
>> NEW
>>  support the most recently published version of DTLS, which was DTLS
>>  1.2 [RFC6347] when this RFC was published.
>> END
>> 
>> This provides the same information and is simpler. OK?
> 
> That's ok, but let's not lose the RFC Editor note, e.g., add:
> 
>  RFC Editor: please ensure that the authors double check the above
>  statement about DTLS 1.2 during AUTH48 and then remove this note
>  before publication.
OK. Added.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Tuexen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:56 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: Benoit Claise; The IESG; Gorry Fairhurst; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
>> dtls-encaps-08: (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 20 Jan 2015, at 22:47, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Benoit,
>>> 
>>>> The DTLS implementation MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and SHOULD
>>>> support the most recently published version of DTLS, which is DTLS
>>>> 1.2 [RFC6347] as of December 2014.
>>>> 
>>>> December 2014 is wrong.
>>> 
>>> Nitpick department ;-) - as of Dec 2014, DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] is the most
>>> recently published (as an RFC) version of DTLS, even though that RFC was
>>> published in Jan 2012, so the quoted text is actually correct ;-).
>>> 
>>> Nonetheless, here's a clearer suggestion:
>>> 
>>> OLD
>>>  support the most recently published version of DTLS, which is DTLS
>>>  1.2 [RFC6347] as of December 2014.
>>> NEW
>>>  support the most recently published version of DTLS, which was DTLS
>>>  1.2 [RFC6347] when this RFC was published (XXXXXXXXX 2015).
>>> 
>>>  RFC Editor: please fill in publication month of this RFC and ensure
>>>  that correctness of the above statement is checked during AUTH48.
>>> END
>> What about:
>> 
>> NEW
>>  support the most recently published version of DTLS, which was DTLS
>>  1.2 [RFC6347] when this RFC was published.
>> END
>> 
>> This provides the same information and is simpler. OK?
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:34 PM
>>>> To: The IESG
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> draft-
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
>> dtls-
>>>> encaps-08: (with COMMENT)
>>>> 
>>>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> The DTLS implementation MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and SHOULD
>>>> support the most recently published version of DTLS, which is DTLS
>>>> 1.2 [RFC6347] as of December 2014.
>>>> 
>>>> December 2014 is wrong.
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
>