Voice Message Routing Service
RFC 4238
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
send info
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)
No email
send info
send info
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)
No email
send info
send info
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 -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
send info
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?