Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt

Hi,

please, find below my comments on the enumservices guide draft. As soon
as these comments are addressed, I will get the IESG as a whole to
review the draft.

Cheers,

Gonzalo


Review: draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19.txt

The Introduction mentions both Specification Required and Expert Review.
However, they are two different policies, as described in Section 4.1 of
RFC 5226. Which policy is to be applied? Section 3 talks about Expert
Review but not about Specification Required but Section 3.4 indicates
that the policy to be followed is Specification Required. It is
important to pick a single policy out of the ones described in RFC 5226
and clarify which one has been chosen. The confusion may come from the
fact that Specification Required implies the use of a designated expert.
The document should be very clear about what IANA policy applies.

Section 11.7 also talks about Expert Review and Specification Required.

Section 1 says:  The new registration processes have been specifically
designed to be decoupled from the existence of the ENUM working group.

Later in the document, Section 6.3 says: The authors MUST send an email
to <[email protected]>. Is the intention to keep that mailing list alive
regardless of the existence of the WG? The document should clarify this.

Also, the last paragraph of Section 6.3 talks about "Experts". However,
at that point in the process, no experts have been designated yet. Who
are the "Experts" Section 6.3 refers to? The subscribers of the enum
mailing list?

Section 6.6 recommends to publish an RFC and provides several
alternatives to do that: through a WG, as an AD sponsored RFC, or an an
individual submission to the RFC editor. Do we want to recommend one of
these alternatives over the others? (e.g., if the enum WG exists,
publish it there, otherwise, talk to the RAI ADs).