Re: [IANA #171390] FW: Revision of IANA Enumservice registry

Michelle,

Thanks for your fast feedback.

I have changed the document to make it more clear, i.e. I made a 
difference between RFC specs and other specs. RFC specs follow the normal 
IETF procedures, non-RFC specs are handled slightly different (as outlined 
below).

The XML2RFC template is no longer part of the document, so no worries 
here.

The only comment I have not addressed (yet) is the time limit. Does 
this really have to be specified? If yes, what would be good figure?

cheers,
  Bernie



> Bernie, I have reviewed the IANA Considerations section in version 12 of the
> document once more.  Most everything does seem ok.
> I do have a couple comments.
>
> I still feel the review described here does not exactly follow what is described
> in RFC5226, so it might be worth stating that it follows RFC 5226 with some
> additional procedures.
>
> When a registration is first reviewed by an expert and then is approved.  IANA
> will notify the author (requester).  At that time, it seems that the
> registration is then put "on hold" waiting for the publication of the
> specification. When IANA has these requests in our ticketing system, is it
> sufficient to put this request as "waiting on the requester" as IANA waits to be
> informed the spec has been published? Is there a time limit of how long IANA
> waits?  This means IANA will have a ticket open for a long time in our queue.
>
> Also.  For section 11.2, does IANA really need to make the xml2rfc template
> public or is having it in this document enough?  Also, will you be adding the
> "chunk" for the registry when it is finalized for future registrations?
>
> Hope this review helps.
>
> Michelle Cotton
> IANA