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

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:34:05 -0800

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.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:47:31 +0000

Benoit,

>    1.2 [RFC6347] as of December 2014.

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

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:34 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-
> encaps-08: (with COMMENT)
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:56:49 +0100

Hi David,

Do what's right/what you want. I believe we have spent enough time 
already on this one :-)

Regards, 
Benoit-who-filed-a-stupid-editorial-comment-to-show-the-world-he-read-the-draft.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:56:05 +0100

> On 20 Jan 2015, at 22:47, Black, David <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Benoit,
> 
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

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:24:03 +0000

> 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

> From: Michael Tuexen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:56 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Benoit Claise; The IESG; Gorry Fairhurst; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
> dtls-encaps-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
>

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:10:26 +0100

> On 24 Jan 2015, at 00:24, Black, David <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> What about:
>> 
>> NEW
OK. Added.

Best regards
Michael