Re: Feedback to draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-02.txt

Hi Lawrence

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, lconroy wrote:

> As I understand it, it will obsolete RFC 3761 when it's an RFC,
> but this draft doesn't obsolete anything. The author of RFC 2026 is
> familiar with this draft, so could give you the gory details  :).

xml2rfc produces the following header:

  Obsoletes: 3761 (if approved)


> Finally, why *require* an RFC for "X-foo"?

This is not what I meant.

I suggested that any prefix containing a "-" as a 2nd character (e.g. X-, 
P-, A-, Z-, ...) needs to be documented in an RFC (to allow the prefix 
to be used as type or subtype in Enumservice Registrations).
The registration itself would still be just "specification required".

cheers,
  Bernie