[Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10
"Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 10:41 UTC
Return-Path: <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE37F3A6910 for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3SD7ZkRCRol for <enum@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F05E3A68B0 for <enum@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.31203598; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:45:09 -0600
Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:42:28 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@hoeneisen.ch>, 'IETF ENUM list' <enum@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10
Thread-Index: AQHL7TTUpd9kIg6gDEOpGCjCEPV9kQ==
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:42:27 +0000
Message-ID: <C9B63227.1FF6E%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9B0B2F0.1F7FF%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.12]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9B632271FF6Ejasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:41:13 -0000
While not required, since the draft was updated I have updated my expert review. There were no substantive changes and so this document is still fine, from my standpoint. - Jason //Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Date Review Requested: 28 March 2011 Date Review Completed: 28 March 2011 Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> -------------------------------------------- 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 'iax' is approved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: I was appointed by the IESG 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 this document (Sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) 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 properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correctly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, Enumservice specification document, and requestors. -------------------------------------------- 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 protocol-based, based on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. -------------------------------------------- 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. However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protocol expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provides the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while section 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to provide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of their document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, section 2 of RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RFC 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registration document is necessary. -------------------------------------------- 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// On 3/24/11 8:58 AM, "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com<mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: //Start of Expert Review Document// Expert Review of: IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' Document Name: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Document Location: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Date Review Requested: 22 March 2011 Date Review Completed: 24 March 2011 Review Conducted By: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com<mailto:jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>> -------------------------------------------- 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 'iax' is approved. -------------------------------------------- Expert's Detailed Review: I was appointed by the IESG 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 this document (Sections 3 and 5 of RFC 6117) 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 properly defined as protocol-based, on the basis of RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. It also properly defines the type, correctly omits the subtype since this is not used, and properly defines the URI scheme, functional specification, security considerations, intended usage, and Enumservice specification document. A requestor is defined, though for whatever reason only one of the two document authors are listed (Klaus Darilion has been omitted). -------------------------------------------- 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 protocol-based, based on RFC 5456 which documents the IAX protocol. -------------------------------------------- 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. However, the expert reviewer, while an ENUM expert, is not an IAX protocol expert and is therefore not well versed in all of the possible configurations and common configuration errors of IAX-based services. -------------------------------------------- Additional Expert's Comments: Section 2 of this document correctly provides the XML that IANA needs for updating their registry. However, while section 5.2 of RFC 6117 clearly instructs authors of a registration document to provide the registration in XML, this does not preclude authors from describing the registration in plain text in order to enhance the readability of their document. Examples of this can be found in section 2 of RFC 3762, section 2 of RFC 3764, section 3 of RFC 4002, section 3 of RFC 4355, section 3 of RFC 4415, section 3 of RFC 4769, section 3 of RFC 4969, section 3 of RFC 4979, section 2 of RFC 5028, section 4 of RFC 5278, and section 2 of RFC 5333. This is a minor point and no update of the registration document is necessary. -------------------------------------------- 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// _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org<mailto:enum@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-09 Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-… Bernie Hoeneisen
- Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-… Bernie Hoeneisen
- [Enum] Expert Review of: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 Livingood, Jason