Facsimile Using Internet Mail (IFAX) Service of ENUM
RFC 4143

[Ballot comment]
I reviewed this carefully in an earlier version and had them bring it into line with
the other enumservice documents.  Also noted:  IANA has checked.

[Ballot comment]
It would be nice if the sentence in the Security Considerations section referring to 3761 noted that that document discussed the DNS-specific security issues.

[Ballot comment]
Draft: draft-ietf-fax-faxservice-enum-03
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Date: July 5, 2004

Fundamentally this seems ready to go as PS.

I have a little concern about the security section.

1. s/Security Consideration/Security Considerations/
(in three places)

2. The third paragraph about "sacrificial" email accounts
and the non-existence of "sacrifical" E.164 numbers seems
out of place to me - it adds nothing useful, and the reader
is left wondering "why did they tell me that?".

3.
>    Due to the implications of publishing data on a globally accessible
>    database, as a principle the data subject MUST give their explicit
>    informed consent to data being published in ENUM.

I don't really see this as an RFC 2119 "MUST". Lower case would be fine.
The English in this sentence needs cleaning, too.

AD review comments (can be fixed after last call completes):

- There's a reference to [KEYWORDS] on the first page, but no such reference exists.  Please add a reference to RFC 2119 if that's the reference being described.

- The line lengths get a little long in section 3 (I-D nit, "No text beyond the 72nd column of a line").

- In section 4, please change the example to use one of the example domain names cited in RFC 2606 instead of "ifax.com".

- Please split references into normative and informative subsections in section 6 (I-D nit).  You can leave informative out if all references are normative.

- Update the [ENUMbis] reference to point to RFC 3761.

- Remove the reference for [FFPIM].  I don't see it used anywhere in the document.

- The boilerplate is outdated, but the RFC Editor will fix that.

This document  starts the template without stating the enumservice name, E2U+ifax. The *type* is ifax. There should be review by the ENUM working group to see if the enum usage has other problems.  It lacks a privacy discussion (a good model is found in draft-ietf-enum-webft).  It lacks a discussion of DNS security use (a good model is found in the RFC Editor note to rfc2916bis in this tracker's log file).