Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt

2011-04-08 Thread Bernie Hoeneisen 

Hi Miguel

Thanks for your feedback on this document.

Since RFC 6117 is in place, Enumservice registrations no longer require 
Standards Track. The new policy is specification required, which includes 
expert review. The expert review has been conducted by Jason Linvingood.


Thus, informational is more than sufficient to fulfill the new policy 
(specification required).


Hope this addresses your concern.

cheers,
 Bernie (document shepherd & author of RFC 6117)

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization


On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:


I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 



Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia 
Review Date: 2011-04-08
IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-19
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: The document is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

I reviewed version 05 of this document, and at that time I had a single 
comment that has been addressed. I have reviewed all the changes since -05 to 
-10, and they improve the document and align with the template mandated by 
RFC 6117.


Perhaps my only comment is related to the intended category of the draft. In 
principle, the draft is intended to be published as informational RFC. A 
search in the RFC Editor pages for "IANA registration" reveals that most of 
the RFCs that register IANA parameter are published in the standards track. I 
wonder why this document should be published in the Informational track. I 
guess the ADs should have the last word on this topic.


Other than that, I think this document is ready for publication.

 Miguel Garcia.
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt

2011-04-08 Thread Miguel A. Garcia 

Yes, no problem then.

/Miguel

On 08/04/2011 10:22, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

Hi Miguel

Thanks for your feedback on this document.

Since RFC 6117 is in place, Enumservice registrations no longer require
Standards Track. The new policy is specification required, which includes
expert review. The expert review has been conducted by Jason Linvingood.

Thus, informational is more than sufficient to fulfill the new policy
(specification required).

Hope this addresses your concern.

cheers,
   Bernie (document shepherd&  author of RFC 6117)

--

http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization


On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:


I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia
Review Date: 2011-04-08
IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-19
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: The document is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

I reviewed version 05 of this document, and at that time I had a single
comment that has been addressed. I have reviewed all the changes since -05 to
-10, and they improve the document and align with the template mandated by
RFC 6117.

Perhaps my only comment is related to the intended category of the draft. In
principle, the draft is intended to be published as informational RFC. A
search in the RFC Editor pages for "IANA registration" reveals that most of
the RFCs that register IANA parameter are published in the standards track. I
wonder why this document should be published in the Informational track. I
guess the ADs should have the last word on this topic.

Other than that, I think this document is ready for publication.

  Miguel Garcia.
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain



--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08

2011-04-08 Thread Mary Barnes 
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  8 April 2011
IETF LC End Date:  20 April 2011

Summary:  Almost Ready.

Major issue:

- The document is listed as Standards Track but but does not contain the RFC
2119 boilerplate. There is some RFC 2119 terminology used, however, there
seems to be a lot of cases where RFC 2119 language is appropriate but not
used.


Minor issue:

- The document doesn't pass idnits - the error appears to be an old
reference to the IETF trust provisions.

- I'm assuming an XML expert has reviewed the schema, however, there is no
Write-up in the History stating such.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev

2011-04-08 Thread kathleen.moriarty 
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may 
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev
Reviewer:  Kathleen Moriarty
Review Date:  8 April 2011
IETF LC End Date:  11 April 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:  The document is ready with nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3.2, paragraph 2:
It reads as a 4 element list instead of 2, here is one option:
Change from: (space, ASCII decimal 32, or horizontal tab, ASCII decimal 9).
To:  (space (ASCII decimal 32) or horizontal tab (ASCII decimal 9)).

Section 5.2:
Consider changing from: The VALUE parameter is optional, and is used to 
identify the value
   type (data type) and format of the value.
To: The VALUE parameter is optional, used to identify the value
   type (data type) and format of the value.

Section 5.2:
Although it is a preference to have a comma before the last value in a list, 
the IETF prefers it according to the Gent-ART guidance.  The usage would also 
be consistent with the other comma separated lists in the document.
Change from: value lists except within the N, NICKNAME, ADR and CATEGORIES 
properties.
To: value lists except within the N, NICKNAME, ADR, and CATEGORIES properties.

Section 5.3:
Remove the comma in the first sentence, it is not necessary.

Section 5.5:
Comma is not necessary in the following sentence (only when the list has 3 or 
more values):
Its value is either a single small positive integer, or a pair of small 
positive integers separated by a dot.


Section 6.1.4:
Second paragraph of 'location' section
Change from:  All properties in an location
To:  All properties in a location

Iana-token section:
Change from:  A new value's specification document MUST
 specify which properties make sense for that new kind of vCard, and 
which do not.
To:  A new value's specification document MUST
 specify which properties make sense for that new kind of vCard and 
which do not.

Section 9:
Birthday, address, and phone information could be sensitive.  In the third 
bullet, you may want to protect certain information if required by regulations 
(country, state specific, and industry - FERPA for universities)
The cryptographic keys would just be the public key for the user in the card if 
it was shared.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art