Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Presence Services
RFC 3953

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-05-27)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Kent Crispin, Gen-ART
His review:

This draft is one of the many areas where I have little expertise. 
That said, in my non-expert opinion, it's on the right track, but it
needs more.  In particular, I would have found it quite helpful if the
example section was expanded, and some explanation thrown in.

References not split into normative/informative...

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-05-24)
No email
send info
The example provided in section 5 uses domain "" instead of example.(com|net|org) or <something>.example as described in RFC 2606.  The example line is a little long, too, and will need to be wrapped to fit the page boundary.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-05-26)
No email
send info
  In section 5: s/

  I would prefer a stronger statement in Section 6, 2nd paragraph,
  last sentence.  How about:

    Any presence protocol that is used in conjunction with the
    'pres' URI scheme must meet the privacy requirements detailed
    in RFC2779.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-05-26)
No email
send info
Abstract needs to expand the acronyms

On page 3 sect 1 need to use proper example fqdn:
  like ''.
  like ''.

There are several other places where an Acronym is used without
being expanded with the first time use.

You may want to check for consistency. 
Sometimes I see: 'pres' URI
other times just: pres URI

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) Recuse