Document: draft-ietf-enum-pstn-04.txt Reviewer: Black_David@emc.com Review Date: Monday 6/19/2006 9:42 AM CST IESG Telechat Date: Thursday, 22 June 2006 Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. The draft is generally in good shape; it's almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but I found two relatively minor issues that need attention, plus a couple of IANA-related nits. The two issues are: (1) The use of actual phone numbers is almost certainly a mistake. The draft should use fictitious phone numbers (555-XXXX subset) for the same reasons that television shows use fictitious numbers, and that RFCs use fictitious domain names (e.g., example.com) as well as IP addresses (e.g., 192.0.2.26). The NeuStar folks on this email should know (or be able to find) the current rules/details/guidelines on fictitious phone numbers and how to use them. (2) All the examples use an npdi to prevent subsequent lookups in legacy-style PSTN databases. If an npdi is something that should or SHOULD be used with this enumservice in general, that ought to be stated, possibly in the "Any other information the author deems interesting:" fields of the registrations (Section 4). -- IANA-related nits a) The registrations in Section 4 need to be self-contained, as they will be extracted into an IANA registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services So, the "(for author contact detail see Authors' Addresses section)" text will not work in the registry. A reference to the to-be- published RFC with instructions to the RFC-Editor to put in the actual number and supply that number to IANA for registration purposes should work. b) Why does the IANA Considerations section include a reference to Section 3? The registrations that IANA needs to process appear to be entirely contained within Section 4.