David: Thanks. In addition, I have this concern:
The resolver needs to be able to verify that the published E.164 record has not been tampered. I think that the security considerations should suggest DNSSEC to provide this protection. Russ At 01:51 AM 5/8/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-enum-im-service-02.txt Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: 7 May 2007 IESG Telechat date: 10 May 2007 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: I found one nit, which is slightly embarrassing for an ENUM draft: - The example phone number '+12025332600' in Section 1 needs to be changed to a fictitious number. See Section 3.6.D of the ID-Checklist. An RFC Editor Note should suffice to deal with this. idnits 2.04.07 didn't catch this one, but also didn't find anything else to complain about. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
