Skip to main content

IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'
draft-ietf-enum-webft-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Kessens
2004-09-09
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-09-07
01 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-09-07
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-09-07
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-09-07
01 Allison Mankin State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Allison Mankin
2004-09-07
01 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'Approved with RFC Editor Notes (see announcement writeup)' added by Allison Mankin
2004-09-03
01 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-09-02
2004-09-02
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-09-02
01 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2004-09-02
01 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Kessens
2004-09-02
01 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-09-02
01 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

Things to fix:

Body (section 2) mentions "RFC2619bis" without reference.  I believe
this is supposed to be a …
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

Things to fix:

Body (section 2) mentions "RFC2619bis" without reference.  I believe
this is supposed to be a reference to "RFC3761 [3]".

Abstract has references.

Should be consistent between "ENUMservice" and "Enumservice".  In
RFC3761 (where it's defined) always uses the latter, except in
productions where all LC is used, while this draft uses the former,
except in the templates (which I expect it copied from RFC3761).  If
the document gets rev'd, I suggest being consistent with the existing
RFC.  On the other hand, I actually prefer the capitalization used in
this document as is, so I'm not going to argue too vociferously for
this.

Additional nit (Harald):

the HTTP and HTTPS methods seem to assume that the method that the user is going to use with the given URL is "GET". But they never say so.
Given their attempt to be unclear about what's actually being done in the Introduction, this may not need addressing.
The text that washes away responsibility:

  The services specified here are intended NOT to specify the protocol
  or even method of connection that MUST be used to achieve each
  service. Instead they define the kind of interactive behavior that an
  end user will expect, leaving the end system to decide (based on
  policies outside the remit of this specification) how to execute the
  service.
2004-09-02
01 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

Things to fix:

Body (section 2) mentions "RFC2619bis" without reference.  I believe
this is supposed to be a …
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

Things to fix:

Body (section 2) mentions "RFC2619bis" without reference.  I believe
this is supposed to be a reference to "RFC3761 [3]".

Abstract has references.

Should be consistent between "ENUMservice" and "Enumservice".  In
RFC3761 (where it's defined) always uses the latter, except in
productions where all LC is used, while this draft uses the former,
except in the templates (which I expect it copied from RFC3761).  If
the document gets rev'd, I suggest being consistent with the existing
RFC.  On the other hand, I actually prefer the capitalization used in
this document as is, so I'm not going to argue too vociferously for
this.
2004-09-02
01 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-09-02
01 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-09-02
01 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2004-09-02
01 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2004-09-02
01 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2004-09-01
01 David Kessens
[Ballot discuss]
In section 4.:

"Functional Specification:

This ENUMservice indicates that the resource identified by the
associated URI scheme is a file service from which …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 4.:

"Functional Specification:

This ENUMservice indicates that the resource identified by the
associated URI scheme is a file service from which a file or file
listing can be retrieved."

What about ftp 'put' ? What about 'anonymous' ftp versus username/passwd
retrieval ?
2004-09-01
01 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-09-01
01 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Please remove the references ([3]) from the Abstract.

  Section 2 says:
  >
  > The services specified here are intended NOT …
[Ballot comment]
Please remove the references ([3]) from the Abstract.

  Section 2 says:
  >
  > The services specified here are intended NOT to specify the protocol
  > or even method of connection that MUST be used to achieve each
  > service.
  >
  I do not understand the use of RFC 2119 language here.  It is unclear to
  me what an implementation MUST or MUST NOT do.  What would appear in an
  implementation report regarding this sentence?
2004-09-01
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-08-30
01 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-08-30
01 Steven Bellovin [Ballot comment]
Please cite RFC 3833 in the Security Considerations section
2004-08-30
01 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Amy Vezza
2004-08-30
01 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-08-28
01 Allison Mankin [Note]: '- RFC Editor Note for abstract refs (stubborn editors were told...)' added by Allison Mankin
2004-08-28
01 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin
2004-08-28
01 Allison Mankin Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin
2004-08-28
01 Allison Mankin Created "Approve" ballot
2004-08-26
01 Allison Mankin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Allison Mankin
2004-08-26
01 Allison Mankin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-09-02 by Allison Mankin
2004-08-25
01 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-08-11
01 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-08-11
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-08-11
01 Allison Mankin Last Call was requested by Allison Mankin
2004-08-11
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-08-11
01 (System) Last call text was added
2004-08-11
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-06-29
01 Allison Mankin State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Allison Mankin
2004-06-29
01 Allison Mankin Note field has been cleared by Allison Mankin
2004-05-25
01 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2004-05-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-webft-01.txt
2003-12-24
01 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin
2003-12-24
01 Allison Mankin
[Note]: 'WG co-chair  supported re-spinning doc for title clarification and improved security considerations before IETF Last Call.
Should be able to move this doc right …
[Note]: 'WG co-chair  supported re-spinning doc for title clarification and improved security considerations before IETF Last Call.
Should be able to move this doc right after the New Year.' added by Allison Mankin
2003-12-22
01 Allison Mankin Needs  revised title, DNSSEC sentence and split references.  Discussed with Chairs and decided on a rev before IETF Last Call.
2003-11-23
01 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin
2003-07-08
01 Natalia Syracuse Draft Added by Syracuse, Natalia
2003-06-16
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-enum-webft-00.txt