Re: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4756bis (was Re: AD Review:draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4765bis-05)

Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:

> OK, right. "FEC" semantics are not defined in the new draft. If a new
> implementation wants to be able to speak to 4756 endpoints, it will need
> 4756. Then I guess you are disagreeing that we are obsoleting 4756.
> 
> Well, I am not sure what is the right term here. At that time, I was
> told "obsoleting" was the right choice. To me, RFC 4756 will still be
> available for anybody who wants to be backward compatible anyway. So, I
> did not think it would be a problem. But, if you say it is a problem, I
> can't argue with that.

The correct word, in English at least, is 'deprecated'. The previous
version is still valid, but is not recommended for new implementations.

--

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming <at> digium.com
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org