I believe that the RFC-Editor note you request here was already in the tracker at the time that this document was balloted for an IESG call. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Black_David@xxxxxxx [mailto:Black_David@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:47 AM > To: rohan@xxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Black_David@xxxxxxx; Peterson, Jon; Shockey, Richard; > paf@xxxxxxxxx; > alexander.mayrhofer@xxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: FW: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt > > > This draft has not been revised since it was reviewed in > August. It is still basically ready for publication, but > has nits that should be fixed before publication. > > An RFC Editor Note should be used to correct the bad section > reference (see below), and the IESG should ensure that this > correction is communicated to IANA, as it affects the > registration that IANA will perform. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > black_david@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:08 AM > To: Rohan Mahy; 'gen-art@xxxxxxxx' > Cc: Black, David; 'Jon Peterson'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Patrik > Faltstrom'; > 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; 'ietf@xxxxxxxx' > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt > > 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. > > > Document: draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt > Reviewer: David Black > Review Date: 24 August 2007 > IETF LC End Date: 6 September > > Summary: > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > Comments: > This is a relatively straightforward registration of an ENUM > service, and the draft does a good job of explaining the > service that is being registered. I found one minor > nit in the service registration (Section 2): > > Security considerations: > See section 3. > > That should be "See section 4." as section 3 contains examples > and section 4 is the Security Considerations. > > idnits 2.04.14 did not find any issues. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > black_david@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf