Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-enum-cnam-07.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:58:53 +0200

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-masked]>
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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art