//Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'acct' Document Name: draft-goix-appsawg-enum-acct-uri-06.txt Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goix-appsawg-enum-acct-uri-06 Date Review Started (on revision -06): 13. Jan 2014 Date Review Completed: 13. Jan 2014 Revision: 1.0 [2013-01-13] Review Conducted By: Bernie Hoeneisen -------------------------------------------- Expert's Note: This review was conducted in accordance with RFC 6117. Specific guidance on the Expert Review process for Enumservices in RFC 6117 is in Sections 6.5, and 7. +----------------------------+ | Expert's Finding: APPROVED | +----------------------------+ Expert's Comments: After conducing my review, it is my expert opinion that the publication of this registration document for an Enumservice 'acct' is approved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: As IESG Designated Expert for ENUM I was requested by IANA to perform an expert review of this document in accordance with the Expert Review process described in RFC 6117. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 1: Verify conformance with the ENUM specification RFC 6116. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 2: Verify that the requirements set out in RFC 6117 (Sections 3 and 5) are met. This includes checking for completeness and whether all the aspects described in Sections 3 and 5 are sufficiently addressed. Review Finding: Complies with sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117. This Enumservice's class is defined as Application-Based, Ancillary (see also Review Step 5 below). It also properly defines the Type, correctly omits the Subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme (based on draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri), functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, Enumservice specification document, and requesters. Note: draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri is a normative reference of this Enumservice registration. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 3: If a use case is provided, the experts should verify whether the proposed Enumservice does actually match the use case. The experts should also determine whether the use case could be covered by an existing Enumservice. Review Finding: Complies, with use cases documented in section 3 of the registration document. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 4: Verify that the Enumservice proposed cannot be confused with identical (or similar) other Enumservices already registered. Review Finding: Complies. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 5: If the Enumservice is classified according to Section 4.2 of RFC 6117, the experts must verify that the principles of the Class in question are followed. Review Finding: Complies. The registration qualifies as Application-Based, Ancillary. Note that among the ENUM experts there have been discussions on proper classification of this Enumservice, as the acct Enumservices is somewhat special. The ENUM experts came to the conclusion that Application-Based, Ancillary is the best fit for the acct Enumservice. Furthermore, the expert requested the authors to make a clear distinction between webfinger and acct, so that a potential future registration of webfinger will not be hindered by this registration, which has been implemented by the authors. (According to the authors this Enumservice is intended to focus on acct.) -------------------------------------------- Review Step 6: In case the Enumservice is not classified, the experts must verify whether a convincing reason for the deviation is provided in the Registration Document. Review Finding: Not applicable (see Review Step 5 above). -------------------------------------------- Review Step 7: Investigate whether the proposed Enumservice has any negative side effects on existing clients and infrastructure, particularly the DNS. Review Finding: Complies. No negative side effects on clients or infrastructure can be envisioned by the expert at this time and no one has raised any such concerns on the ENUM working group mailing list or other relevant IETF mailing lists of which the expert is aware. -------------------------------------------- Review Step 8: If the output of processing an Enumservice might be used for input to more ENUM processing (especially services returning 'tel' URIs), the experts should verify that the authors have adequately addressed the issue of potential query loops. Review Finding: Complies. The document does raise the seemingly small potential for such loops in section 6 of the registration document, which should be sufficient warning for implementers to ensure that they properly implement this Enumservice. Based on the registration document's examples and a review of the entire document, no great risk of query loops can be envisioned at this time. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: The experts also suggested some editorial changes (to earlier revisions), which have been implemented by the authors promptly. -------------------------------------------- Acknowledgments: Many thanks to Lawrence Conroy for his insight and help with the classification of this service, and to Jason Livingood for his spadework performed by expert reviewing the first Enumservice (iax); its result has served as a template and thus simplified this expert review. -------------------------------------------- Appeals of the Expert Review Process: Appeals of Expert Review decisions follow the process described in Section 7 of RFC 5226 and Section 6.5 of RFC 2026. //End of Expert Review Document//