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-validation-token-03.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2 July 2007 IESG Telechat date: 5 July 2007 Summary: This draft is ready, with some minor questions. Comments: Substantive: ------------ This seems clear and straightforward. I have not checked the XML with a parser. A few minor questions: > 4.1. The <validation> Element ... > o An optional <lastE164Number> element. If present it indicates > that the whole number block starting with <E164Number> up to and > including <lastE164Number> has been validated. To avoid > ambiguity, both numbers must be of the same length. Isn't it the case that some countries (e.g. Germany) use variable length numbers within a single PABX? How will that be handled? > 4.2. The <tokendata> Element ... > o A single <address> section containing the following elements: I'm a little concerned that this may be too simply defined. If you look at section 3.4. "Civic Address Components" of RFC 4676, you will see the results of a thorough approach. ... > ... The <ISOcountryCode> element specifies the country using the > ISO 3166 [11] code. Does that reference dated 1988 automatically pull in the latest list of country codes? > 8. IANA Considerations > > This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas > conforming to a registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [13]. That looks like a normative reference to me. Editorial: ---------- [9] 3rd, D., Boyer, J., and J. Reagle, "Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0", W3C REC REC-xml-exc-c14n- 20020718, July 2002. Has lost part of the authors' names.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
