Subject: [clue] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:27:14 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

I agree with Benjamin Kaduk's comment about considering whether
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel should be a normative reference for at least
clue-signaling, but it's worth noting that draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel is a
C238 draft in Missref at the RFC Editor, and was approved about the same time
that DTLS 1.2 was published. I'm hoping that there's no reason to look at C238
drafts when we're doing IESG Evaluation for drafts that refer to them (directly
or indirectly), but thought I should ask before CLUE comes out as RFCs.