> On 30 Nov 2020, at 14:08, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:36 PM Olle E. Johansson <o...@edvina.net > <mailto:o...@edvina.net>> wrote: > > > > On 30 Nov 2020, at 01:51, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com > > <mailto:watsonbl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Dear TLS WG, > > > > I think RFC 7627 should update 5056, 5705, and maybe a few more. > > > > I noticed these omissions when looking at the kitten draft to use TLS > > 1.3 exporters. Having these updates would hopefully make clear what > > uses need to be updated, or at least show where there might be a > > problem. > > On that topic I have to repeat an earlier question that I did not see any > response to. > > SIP is declared in RFC 3261. This draft updates 3261. Does this mean > that the SIP standard is modified? To be SIP compliant, do one has to > follow this document too (after publication)? > > I’ve gotten a few pointers earlier that ended up with “It’s unclear what an > RFC update means”. > > I would really like it to mean that in order to be SIP compliant, you can not > use deprecated versions of TLS. > > Me too. Unfortunately, my understanding of the way things work is that there's > no formal thing meaning "SIP Compliant". Rather, one complies with a bunch of > RFCs and so people wouldn't be "RFC XXXX compliant", which isn't really what > is wanted here.
Ok - but does this change the meaning of being “RFC 3261” compliant? Or do we have to say “RFC3261 compliant with the addition of RFC XXXX” where XXXX is this document? Sorry to be picky, but I’m interested in understanding the effect of these updates to a long list of RFCs. /O
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
