Subject: RE: [Enum] ENUM Working Group Last call on IANA Registration for Enumservice Voice

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:11:52 -0400

> This draft is sufficiently easy to understand that this can 
> proceed immediately to last call as we discussed in Paris.

Not to throw a wrench into the process, but can the authors please
insert an examples section into the I-D?  (Such as in RFC 3953, section
5, or draft-ietf-enum-void-01, section 6.)  I find these very useful and
it can often foster better / more efficient discussion about the
application intended by drafts in general.

I also find the ENUM service registration format from RFC 3953 (also RFC
3764, RFC 4002, draft-ietf-enum-void-01, draft-ietf-enum-msg-05, etc.)
to be a good guide as well (copied text below from RFC 3953).  It is
useful if all of the ENUMservice registrations follow a (somewhat)
uniform document format so that they may be more easily referenced by
developers and people deploying ENUM-enabled services/technology.

	ENUM Service Registration

   	As defined in [1], the following is a template covering
information
   	needed for the registration of the enumservice specified in this
   	document:

      Service name: "E2U+pres"

      URI scheme(s): "pres:"

      Functional Specification: See section 4.

      Security considerations: See section 6.

      Intended usage: COMMON

      Author: Jon Peterson ([email-masked])

      Any other information that the author deems interesting: See
      section 3.

Just my feedback, take it or leave it.  :-)

Thanks
Jason Livingood
 
> I've noted no substantive issues with it.
> 
> Title		: IANA Registration for Enumservice Voice
> 	Author(s)	: R. Brandner
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-enum-voice-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 13
> 	Date		: 2005-9-12

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

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:57:52 +0200 (CEST)

Hi Jason et al.

> application intended by drafts in general.

I fully support the idea of having an example section in all ENUM service 
registration documents. When the ENUM service registration for H.323 
URLs I/D (now RFC 3762) was in last call I also made such a LC comment, 
which unfortunately was ignored / not applied:

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg02784.html

Your comments bring me to the idea of making a "template" with 
guidelines for future ENUM service registrations. This would make it 
easier for the authors to write those and easier for the reader to 
understand. What do you (and other folks) think about?

cheers,
  Bernie