IANA Registration for Enumservice 'web' and 'ft'
RFC 4002

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

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-02)
No email
send info
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.

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

Comment (2004-08-30)
No email
send info
Please cite RFC 3833 in the Security Considerations section

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-01)
No email
send info
  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?

(David Kessens) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) Abstain