Russ, The abstracts need change - they should not have the word "informational". RFC Editor note is needed to remove the word and 2119 boilerplate = sorry I didn't send this point sooner. The document addressed Thomas's Discuss on its normative status by removing other language about being informational, which had been left in by accident, before the documents made a transition to being BCP. I hadn't thought of the word "Examples" in the title as a problem, but we could delete the word if folks think it doesn't go with BCP. Its companion document addressed Patrik's Discuss by adding a call flow with ENUM, and it is over to Ted now to evaluate this Discuss. Allison P.S. Bert made the point about the 2119 boilerplate, but it's the opposite. We should have no ref and no boilerplate. > I am confused. The agenda says that this document will become a > BCP. However, the abstract clearly indicates that the document is > informational. The title of the document also has a connotation of > informational. > > Russ