Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Enum] Are we ready to go to WGLC on this?]

From: Ed Guy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 08:41:38 -0400

[sent to peter last week, but the working group was mistakenly not cc'd]

Peter,

Thank you for the detailed comments!

Peter Koch wrote:

...

> The normative reference to [ID-IAX] is definitely necessary. The I-D tracker
> lists it as "ID exists" only, so what is the status of that document?
>   
This document is back to "ISR = Independent Submission Review by the RFC 
Editor" in the
RFC editor's queue.  (it was previously ISR-AUTH)  It  has only been in 
this state for a couple weeks.
...

> Is this ENUM service registration aimed at Proposed or Informational?
>   

Even though the underlying protocol is informational,  there is at least 
one other example where the referenced protocol is not on the IETF 
Standards track: H.323. IMHO, it does makes sense to have a standardized 
mechanism to reference a non-standardized protocol.
Hence, in addition to following your other suggestions, I'll fix the ID 
to remove the "informational" and replace it
with "Standards Track" (unless directed or convinced otherwise...)

Best Regards
Ed Guy

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