<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Le 28 févr. 2023 à 22:43, Wes Hardaker <hardaker@isi.edu> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><br>
Do you see this in RFC7701bis or RSSAC001? (For me, taking the IETF perspective, I’m not sure it is really necessary, so I would say only in RSSAC001)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's a technical requirement, so I don't see how it shouldn't be in 7701bis.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It could. My point is that there could be all sorts of technical requirements that RSOs may do, but is not “required” from the perspective of IETF. Hence not really needed in RFC7720+. Again, the perspective of 7720 was a high-level minimal requirements from the IETF to RSO, not the whole set of possible requirements that could be implemented by RSOs. At that time, we refrain from going deep into every detail: we could have gone into DNSSEC algorithms, … </div><div><br></div><div>Again, I’m not against anything, just want to make sure we understand the purpose of RFC7720 and its successors.</div><div><br></div><div>Marc. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Wes Hardaker<div>USC/ISI</div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>