Re: Last Call: The E.164 to URI DDDS Application (ENUM) toProposed Standard

["Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <lwc@roke.co.uk>]

Hello,
  I have one outstanding comment on rfc2916bis-06.txt that has not been
addressed during the WG Last Call (and was raised there, with no response).

The last sentence of section 3., immediately prior to section 3.1
(Registration Requirements), was changed to reflect agreement that
non-standards track RFCs may sometimes be appropriate for enumservice
specifications (e.g. Experimental RFCs may be used to specify
Experimental enumservices).

However, the first sentence of section 3.1.4 (Publication Requirements)
has not been yet changed to reflect this. At best, this leaves an
inconsistency. At worst, it still excludes non-(standards track/BCP)
specifications, and so means that any Experimental enumservices have
to be specified as Standards Track (and this doesn't reflect the
meeting minutes of the last IETF meeting; there have been no other
comments on the list).

As there was a clear statement in the minutes of the last meeting
and there have been NO comments on the ENUM list, I assume that this
is a simple typo, and can be changed either as a copy of the sentence
from the Section 3 introduction, or by simply removing the text after
"RFCs" until the end of the sentence. [As it's a stronger limit, I'd
suggest the former].

As written, this document is inconsistent, and I would ask that this
be corrected.

best regards,
  Lawrence Conroy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.