Subject: [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-03

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:38:24 +0100

I've found the following issues with the current draft:

- Boilerplate: I believe that rsn, the I-D-Team will only accept drafts with
the new boilerplate (recognizing the IETF Trust). Please update accordingly.

- Abstract: There are non-ASCII-Characters around e164.arpa - most probably
"fancy" apostrophes... Please remove them.

- ToC: The title of section 4 in the ToC differs from the title of the
section itself. Please fix.

- Terminology: The draft does not contain a single instanct of RFC2119-style
key words. Hence, either remove that section, or add such key words where
they should apply. In that case it is being kept, please add a proper
reference to RFC 2119 (currently, the reference does not point to the list
of references).

- Section 4, Section 3: I'd rather swap them.

- (current) Section 4: Please add a reference (informative, probably) to RFC
2870.

- Section 5: Please use only "example.com/.net/.org" (or subdomains off
there) in the examples. Simply appending one of the TLDs to the example URIs
will do..

- References: Some of them are never used in the document (like [5], [6],
[7], [8], [9] (btw, that doesn't seem to have it's place here anyway)). If
you really want to refer to obsoleted RFC 2916, please put it into the
"informative" section.

hope that helps.

Alex

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

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:38:58 -0500

> - Section 4, Section 3: I'd rather swap them.

Sound right to me as well.

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:56:58 +0000

Hi Folks,
   OK, whilst we're at the level of boilerplate changes, I believe  
that I-Ds
are supposed to indicate their intended status (i.e. what track  
they're on).
Most all of the other drafts in the WG don't, but at the top of the  
document
you could put in "Intended Status: Informational".
Look at <draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00.txt> as an example of a draft aimed at
BCP status. (It's VERY easy to do if the draft is XML-based and uses  
XML2RFC).

Also, the citation of the requirements document needs to be updated.

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:20:03 +0100

lconroy wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>   OK, whilst we're at the level of boilerplate changes, I believe that I-Ds
> are supposed to indicate their intended status (i.e. what track they're
> on).

yep. Afaik leaving that out means "standards track".

> Also, the citation of the requirements document needs to be updated.

thanks for catching that, Lawrence.

cheers

Alex