hi francis
thanks for the review, i guess that the comments you have provided can be
dealt during the RFC edition, if not please advise
thanks,
- dimitri.
Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
03/05/2006 19:55
To: [email protected]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dimitri
PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt
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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
