Subject: Re: [Iptel] One more trivial NIT on iptel-tel-enumdi-02

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:59:00 +0100

All,

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> The BNF does not add the enumdi to the par rule in the tel RFC. And 
>> the IANA
>> registry question would also impact this.
>>
>> I'm also wondering if I am nuts thinking that the we need to say that 
>> this
>> draft updates the par line. It makes sense to me but if others think 
>> this is
>> not needed - let me know I am nuts.

I second that we need to say this. The last sentence of the section (which, 
btw, should mention "enumdi" instead of "enum-dip-indicator"?) should at 
least specify where in the tel URI can appear. I like the style from 
draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group, btw.

I also think that "No considerations for IANA" should be clarified. Without 
the background of the tel URI registry draft this is a imho bit misleading 
(and, could be interpreted as an suggestion that tel URI parameters do not 
need to be registered/coordinated at all [otoh, 3966 section 5.4 clarifies 
this already]).

>> Can we also get someone to do a NITS review of this draft. It the 
>> review was
>> already done in the ENUM group then I am happy to skip it.

My comments are as follows:

- As Cullen already pointed out, there's a IPR Boilerplate issue. I've not 
investigated this in detail.

- Secion 1 has a small typo in it: "thisdocument"

- Abbreviations: There are a lot of abbreviations which are never spelled 
out. I've spotted "VoIP", "UAS", "UAC", "ENUM", "PSTN", "URI" (spelled out 
in abstract only - is this ok?), "NAPTR", "RR" not to be on the list of well 
known abbreviations.

- Abstract: The second sentenct of the abstract is a bit too long for my 
poor Engrish ;), would appreciate comments from native speakers here. In 
addition, it only talks about "receiving" an enumdi URI which could lead to 
the impression that the document is only about handling, but not creating 
the parameter in URIs. Furthermore, the ID-Checklist mandates to not use any 
citations in abstracts - Please remove references to RFCs from it. Please 
expand any abbreviations - this could lead to cluttering of the first 
sentence, maybe "SIP Proxies, H.323 gatekeepers and other VoIP elements" 
should be simply replaced by "network elements".

- Readability: Generally, there are a few rather long nested sentences. It 
makes the document hard to read in some points.

- URI examples: "<" and ">" are not part of the URI itself - they are a way 
of embedding URIs in other protocols. Please remove them from the examples.

- IANA considerations: see comment above.

- ABNF is used in the document: Please change its reference to normative.

cheers

Alex Mayrhofer
enum.at

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:32:08 -0800

> need to be registered/coordinated at all [otoh, 3966 section 5.4 clarifies

Makes sense - we have this same problem across all these drafts. Anyone have
suggestions on text to put in. I want it clear to IANA that they don't have
to do anything. 

> My comments are as follows:
Many thanks for the excellent review.