Hi, 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Draft: draft-ietf-enum-cnam-07.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Review Date: 21 November 2007 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: The draft has an RFC 2119 section but does not seem to use normative statements. I guess the registry being updated requires a proposed standard, right? I am not sure whether or not it is mandatory to have an RFC 2119 section in all PSs, even if they do not use RFC 2119 language. At some point the reference [ENUM] is used in the text. It should be [1] instead. In a few places, an RFC appears without a reference. That is, the text says simply RFC 3761 instead of RFC 3761 [1]. The draft should be consistent. Abstracts should not contain references. The draft has one editor and many contributors, but the text "Shocket & Livingood" appears at the bottom of each page. It is not common for drafts to use letters for Informative references (e.g., [A]), but I guess the RFC Editor will replace all number and letter references with more explicit references anyway. ID nits complains about the following: There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 14 pages There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Thanks, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
