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

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 12:51:04 +0000

Many thanks for your review, Rich! I have balloted No Objection.

Francesca

From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 16:40
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: 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.