Hi Ben,
Thank you for addressing my review.
Any document that is required in order to understand and/or implement a document should be a Normative Reference. If your document obsoletes another document, how can that document be anything but a Normative Reference? And yes, my understanding is that you can make a normative reference to an obsolete document in this case.
Of course, this is still an editorial comment that I am sure the RFC Editor will sort out.
Regards,
Dan
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:33 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:41:53AM -0800, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-51
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2021-02-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-22
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Ready
>
> This document updates RFC6347 (DTLS 1.2) with version 1.3 of the protocol. It's
> a clear, well structured and mature document, justifying the time and number of
> successive iterations spent in writing it.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Is really [RFC6347] which this document OBSOLETEs only an Informative Reference?
Thanks for the review!
I don't really understand this comment, though -- the only other choice is
to be a normative reference, but we couldn't make a normative reference to
an obsolete document. Was there something in particular that you thought
required 6437 to be a normative reference?
Thanks,
Ben
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
