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

Hi Bernie,

thanks for addressing my comments on this draft as well.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 26/04/2010 11:46 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo
> 
> Thanks for your AD feedback on draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-19. 
> We have addressed your feedback and submitted a new revision (-20) to the 
> repository. We believe that all issues have been resolved in -20.
> 
> For details see comments inline.
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> cheers,
>   Bernie
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review")
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Fixed ("Specification Required", which implies "Expert Review")
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Fixed (Added a note)
> 
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Fixed (clarified)
> 
> 
>> 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).
> 
> We believe that there is no need put there a specific recommendation (i.e. 
> leave it as it is). The Enumservice Specification authors should decide on 
> this. Furthermore, it makes no sense to still recommend ENUM WG documents, 
> as the WG is to be shut down.
> 
>