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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
