[Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record-02
Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at> Fri, 29 December 2006 14:09 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0IQJ-0000vB-TR; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:09:27 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0IQI-0000v6-P1 for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:09:26 -0500
Received: from pahula.nona.net ([193.80.224.123] helo=kahua.nona.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0IQF-0002St-Fh for enum@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:09:24 -0500
Received: from [10.10.0.215] (nat.labs.nic.at [::ffff:83.136.33.3]) (AUTH: PLAIN axelm, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by pahula with esmtp; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:09:12 +0100 id 00000027.45952188.00007461
Message-ID: <45952168.9010301@enum.at>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:08:40 +0100
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@enum.at>
Organization: enum.at GmbH
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: enum@ietf.org, Otmar Lendl <otmar.lendl@enum.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc:
Subject: [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record-02
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: enum-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, i've done a NITS review on the new version of the branch location record draft. It is in fairly good shape, there are just a few little issues (but i think they could be corrected together with the issues from the upcoming WG last call): - idnits reports 3 false hits on "badly formatted ip addresses" - actually it interprets ENUM domains as IP addresses. hence, rather an issue with idnits itself than with the draft. - Section 1: "URI" is never expanded, "NAPTR" is expanded later (in section 3) - that definition could be moved here. - Section 3: could move the "NAPTR" definition to section 1, remove the second expansion of "FQDN" in item (1.) in the second list - it is already there in the paragraph after the first list. - last paragraph in section 3: "RFC 3271" should most likely be "RFC 3761". - Section 5: afaik the +43 and the +49 numbers don't seem to be drama numbers - the RFC editor requests all phone numbers in the text to be drama numbers. that's it. Alex _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
- [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-branch-loca… Alexander Mayrhofer