Voice Message Routing Service
RFC 4238

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Search Mailarchive

(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-03 for -)
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-02)
  draft-ietf-vpim-routing-09:

    s/Overview/Abstract/

    Please merge the Overview and Abstract.  The result should
    be an Abstract before the Table of Contents.

    Please delete the last paragraph of the Overview prior to
    publication as an RFC.

  draft-ietf-vpim-vpimdir-10:

    Please merge the Overview and Abstract.  The result should
    be an Abstract before the Table of Contents.

    Please delete the last paragraph of the Overview prior to
    publication as an RFC.

    Please delete the Working Group Summary section prior to
    publication as an RFC.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-08)
Positive review:  I've double-checked the enum wg's look at vpim-routing's registration of
two enumservices.  These match the new format that the enum wg has requested of IANA,
and they look right.

New material in the Security Considerations for how to implement
privacy as needed (support DIT and look toward the auth draft
when it finally progresses) cleared my Discuss.

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-03 for -)
Does the current text on vPIMTelephoneNumber in 3.1 of vpimdir intentionally exclude useful non-E.164 numbers (like, say, freephone numbers, which are necessarily national-specific), or is this an unintended potential interpretation of saying that the telephone numbers that appear in this attribute are E.164 numbers?

(Alex Zinin) No Objection