[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-rum-rue-09

Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 10 November 2021 15:40 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rum-rue.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rum@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <163655884163.9457.18358232622824611949@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:40:41 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/FAnGx_MrrlJVdU8WxbGG_BOFVe8>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-rum-rue-09

Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Ready

I am the requested ARTART reviewer for this document.

My primary knowledge of SIP comes from hoping and waiting for STIR/SHAKEN to be
adopted. It really needs SIP experts to do a close review.

I read the document.  It is like a conformance document, full of normative
language about which RFC's MUST be implemented, and which parameters in them
SHOULD have specific values.  I cannot comment on whether the sum total of all
requirements makes sense or not.

The document is well-written. The problem space is well-described. Each
individual obligation (MUST MAY SHOULD etc) is in enough detail to make it
understandable.

[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-rum-r… Rich Salz via Datatracker
Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-r… Francesca Palombini