Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of the Gen-ART process. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Summary: ready Note I am not an expert in the domain (and the only person I trust in this role is already a co-author of the document) and there are only a few difference between the RFC 3946 and this revision. BTW for this kind of revision document it should be fine to have a structured diff. I know the RFC editor has a tool to produce this but this should be provided at least for last calls. About the document itself: - the way (name, reference, ...) to refer to the ITU and ANSI documents is not very unified (RFCs are easier, just put [RFCXXX] :-). - the IANA considerations are from the original RFC 3946 (but no new IANA action is required). I don't know what is the formal way to handle IANA considerations in revisions. - Eric's phone number has an optional digit, something which is impossible according to ITU E.123 (we have the same issue in France, IMHO the international form of phone numbers must not have the optional 0 after the country prefix, now it seems that local rules are different :-) Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
