Re: [Sipbrandy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

    
    I'm not insisting on patches, no.
    The particular trigger for me here was the apparent construction of a
    compound document that is internally inconsistent.  Even de-indenting some
    of the text here might be enough to avoid that conflict (though I didn't
    actually check), as then we would have "commentary surrounding the update"
    that is not intended to be actually in force as part of the updated
    document.
    
    -Benjamin
    

I think you are correctly sensing here that we're a bit on the fence about whether this really "updates" RFC4916. We should get off that fence one way or another. At the end of section 4.3, we do kind of leave it to later work to do a real formal update of RFC4916 (that is alluding to the stir-connected-identity draft, very obliquely).  I would be happy to de-indent, and indeed I'd probably be fine removing the formal normative update of RFC4916 from the boilerplate. Really, the point of the text here is to say that if you were using RFC4916 with STIR for this purpose, you would have to do a couple of things differently. That doesn't mean RFC4916 is broken or requires modification outside of this use case.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.