Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-Review Team Review: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10

[Bernie Hoeneisen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joseph

Thanks for your review and feedback on draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.
My comments inline.


On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Joseph Yee wrote:

> Nits:
>   (1)
>   In Section 5, IANA Considerations, words suggested to make registration type more specific
>
>   Original
>   This document requests registration of the 'iax' Enumservice
>   according....
>
>   Suggestion
>   This document requests registration of the Enumservice
>   Type 'iax' according.....

Could be changed, although IMHO not really needed.


>   (2)
>   In Section 5, IANA Considerations, specifications reference should include RFC6116
>
>   Original
>   according to the guidelines and specifications in [RFC6117]
>   and the definitions in Section 2 in this document.
>
>   Suggestion
>   according to the guidelines and specifications in [RFC6117],
>   [RFC6116] and the definitions in Section 2 in this document.


Adding a reference to RFC 6116 just confuses the reader, as RFC 6116 does 
not contain any specifications concerning IANA registration. When we 
revised RFC 3761, we purposly made a split between ENUM (as protocol) and 
the Enumservices (IANA registration, process).
(A reader who tries to find IANA Enumservices related content in RFC 6116 
due to such a reference will be disappointed, as all he finds is a 
reference to RFC 6117.)

Therefore, a reference to RFC 6116 to the IANA considerations section 
of draft-ietf-enum-iax should not be added.

cheers,
  Bernie (document shephard of draft-ietf-enum-iax & author of RFC 6117)

PS: I added Jason (the designated Expert for this document) to the Cc.

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization