Subject: [Enum] NITS review for draft-ietf-enum-validation-token-00

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:36:48 +0100

All,

i've performed a NITS review of said draft - Otmar will provide an updated 
version before Dallas.

Generally, the document is in a good shape, and i'd be happy if we could get 
this out of the door together with the other validation documents pretty 
soon - they have been lurking around now for over a year.

My comments are as follows:

- idnits complains that references are not split between Normative and 
Informative.

- Introduction: "ENUM" needs to be spelled out, E.164 is missing the 
reference. I'm unsure whether "XML" needs to be spelled out or is well known 
- question to the RFC editors pending.

- Data requirements: I'd add "piece of" between "only .. data". "Token's" 
should be changed to "Tokens" in the second bullet.

- Digital Signature: XML-DSIG needs to be spelled out. Unsure about 
"RSA-SHA1". Reference to X.509 is missing. "CA" needs to be spelled out.

- Field descriptions: Tags are sometimes called "tag", sometimes 
"attributes" or "strings". This needs to be unified. The "computerized 
directory assistance" fragment should be moved in front of the first 
occurance of "E.115".

- Verification stuff: This should probably be generalized, since not only 
the Registry might do verification of the token. Especially the security 
considerations section would benefit from that.

- XML schemas: Please add "BEGIN" and "END" to the schemas to aid automatic 
schema extraction (see eg. RFC4114 for example). Both schemas pass the 
checking at http://www.w3c.org/2001/03/webdata/xsv

tia,

Alex Mayrhofer

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