Subject: RE: AW: [Enum] 2916bis - more initial review

From: "Yu, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:47:22 -0600

A few comments (some may have been raised by others).  It is late for the
first submission so they are for the next revision.

James

-------------------------------------------------

- Abstract, 1st sentence:
  The text "use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for storage of E.164
numbers" is not right.  Suggest to combine the first two sentences as  "This
document discusses the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for
identifying available services associated with an E.164 number."  

- Abstract, last line:
  Change "discused" to "discussed." 

- Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line:
  Change "storage of E.164 numbers" to "storage of available services
associated with an E.164 number."

- Section 1.2, 2nd line:
  Change "ITU-T standard" to "ITU-T Recommendation."

- Section 1.3, 1st line:
  There is no "priority" field in NAPTR RR.  It is "order" and "preference."

- Section 2.2, First Well Known Rule:
  The text should mention that AUS is the input .  It should also mention
that the output is the first valid key (which is also AUS).  The explanation
in the 2nd sentence does not seem to fit there.

- Section 2.4, 2nd paragraph and algorithm:
  Since DNS is used as the "valid database," the only thing that needs to be
described in this section is the "key format" (e.g., how to turn a Key into
something that is valid for the database).  According to the FWKR, its
output, the first valid key, is again AUS.  So the description should start
from the first valid key, which is an E.164 number minus all non-digit
characters except for the +.   So step 1 can be as simple as 
  1.  Remove the leading "+" from the first valid key.
  Also, it may be better if steps 2 thru 4 are changed to 
  2.  Reverse the order of the digits.  Example: 4321679864
  3.  Insert a dot ('.') after each digit.  Example: 4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.   
  4.  Append the string "e164.arpa." to the end.  Example:
4.3.2.1.6.7.9.8.6.4.e164.arpa.
It can be debated whether there is a need to include the "." (the root)
after "arpa".

- Section 2.4, paragraph after step 4:
  Change "which produces new keys" to "which may produce new keys."

- Section 2.4.2, 1st sentence:
  Change "Service" to "Services" at two places.

- Section 2.4.2, comments in ABNF:
  Someone has suggested to change "protocol and rs fields" to "enumservice
field."  Also, change "an alphabetic" to "an alphabet."

- Section 3.1.1, the last two lines:
  Change "transfered" to "transferred" and "tranfering" to "transfering."

- Section 3.1.2:
  Change "exeprimental" to "experimental."

- Section 4:
  Suggest to use the same order value but different preference values to
show the preferences of the ENUM registrant.
  In example, "ldap" along is not sufficient to identify a particular ldap
schema.  Use something like "sldap" and describe that it is a specific type
of ldap schema.

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:52:43 +0100

--On 2002-02-22 16.47 -0600 "Yu, James" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is late for the

And we just passed the cut-off for submissions of 00 drafts before the
IETF, so no more changes will be done before the IETF.

These change requests are "queued".

   paf