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.