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

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Inline

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

> 
> (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?)
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.

> 
> 
>