Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

Hi Peter

Thanks for your feedback.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Peter Koch wrote:

> 1) The draft now aims at "Standards Track" instead of BCP.  This appears
>   at least "interesting" for a process document. What is the motivation
>   behind this?

We updated this on request from the IESG. I actually don't know what's the 
reasoning behind.

@Gonzalo: Could you please clarify on this?

> 2) The expert review process was carefully designed to give guidance to
>   both the expert and the requester.  The updated draft version now
>   declares this non-normative, making it harder for the expert to
>   insist on certain elements.  I understand from partially following
>   the discussion in the tracker that there were concerns redefining
>   or overruling RFC 5226, but there is precedent for this sort
>   of mandatory review guidelines and it is also appropriate to maintain
>   a level of quality and interoperable specifications that fit the
>   architecture.  Several changes in the normative language seem
>   acceptable or even appropriate, but the general relax clause is
>   a step too far.  See Section 3.2 of RFC 5226: "Ideally, the designated
>   expert follows specific review criteria as documented with the protocol
>   that creates or uses the namespace."

We updated this based on the DISCUSS of Dave Harrington. I included Dave 
into this thread.

@Dave: Could you please explain your concerns wtr. to the ENUM community?

cheers,
  Bernie