Subject: [IPTEL] small comments on 2806bis-04

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:57:06 +0100

Hi Henning, folks,

Two comments for 2806bis-04.
Typos:
line 187: Clarification - should 'URI schemes' be 'URI scheme'?
similarly...
line 322: these URI schemes/this URI scheme/ ?
line 308: c/be /been/

Possibly add a sentence in the IANA considerations section to state:
'Any parameter that should be considered as mandatory should be 
prefixed by "m-" as described in section 5.3'.

Apart from that, I for one think it's fine.
I can read it, can understand how to test it, and the URI syntax is 
much cleaner.

(Now we can complicate it with 'tel:' URI parameter drafts :).

all the best,
   Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:
_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:22:09 -0400

Thanks for catching these straggler plurals. I think I nuked them all. 
While I was in the IANA section, I also added a note that mandatory 
``tel'' parameters must be documented in an informational or 
standards-track RFC. I don't think this is strictly necessary, but it 
greatly helps interoperability, I believe. This ensures some review, as 
a proliferation of mandatory parameters would not be helpful.

Are we ready for an informal WGLC? (As noted, this will also need to be 
reviewed in SIPPING and SIP, but I wanted to make sure that this WG is 
reasonably happy first.)

Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> 'Any parameter that should be considered as mandatory should be prefixed 
> by "m-" as described in section 5.3'.
> 
> I can read it, can understand how to test it, and the URI syntax is much 
> cleaner.
>