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

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

> 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.

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.
> >>
> >