Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06.txt

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:50:12 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-FOOBAR.txt.

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. 

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

All I have are a few small comments in case this i-d is modified.  These
are all minor enough that I would not want to hold up the approval based
on them.

Section 1:

  - It wasn't clear to me (non-expert) that this was really about
    telephony for longer than it was likely useful.  It might be good to
    state this somewhere in the intro even if it seems obvious to the
    folk who developed the spec.

  - "divide provision" --> "divide provisioning"

Section 3:

  - This is just weird.  This seems to be both a template and an
    example.  Perhaps it should be advertised as such.  I.e., I wondered
    why all the fields were filled in if this was merely a template.

  - It might be worthwhile to note under "Identifier persistence
    considerations" that in addition to some of these services possibly
    not being available in some places, the identifiers might have some
    roughness to them in terms of what they get you when used in
    different places.

I liked Appendix A.  We need more of this "here is why we didn't pick an
alternative" bits of text to explain the "why" behind the spec.  Very
nice!

allman

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