Subject: [Rum] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: (with COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:31:37 -0800

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: 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 https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rum-rue/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your work on this topic. I do have one question I’d like answered:

RFC 3261 is updated by a long list of other RFCs. In the course of developing
this spec, did you consider, for each of those, whether it should be listed as
a normative reference?  My guess is that the answer is “yes”, since §5 makes it
appear some careful consideration was given to this question and several of the
RFCs that update 3261 are listed in that section. Still, I’d be more
comfortable if you’d confirm.

(Another way to think of this is, for all the RFCs that update 3261 and are NOT
already referenced by your spec, are you confident they don’t need to be
referenced?)

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:59:18 -0500

Inline

> On Dec 15, 2021, at 6:31 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Oh yes. This was a large discussion in the work group.

> already referenced by your spec, are you confident they don’t need to be
We tried pretty hard to look at that, and we think we did it right, but it’s a complex problem and I’m not highly confident.
But I don’t know what else to do.  We have RFC5411 to help us of course.