Subject: [Simple] Errata report for errata 1282 and 1286 for RFC4975, "The Message Session Relay Protocol"

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:37:38 -0400

======================================================================
RFC4975, "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)"
Source of RFC: simple (rai)

Errata ID: 1282

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-14

Section 9, p.38 says:

   hname = ALPHA *token

It should say:

   hname = ALPHA [token]

(or use:
   hname = ALPHA *1token
)

Notes:

This resolves a potential parsing ambiguity,
and should also improve the readability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended status:  (correct) Hold for document update
	    	     Type: Editorial

The BNF in the RFC is correct, but the formulation "hname = ALPHA
[token]" would be significantly clearer.
======================================================================
RFC4975, "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)"
Source of RFC: simple (rai)

Errata ID: 1286

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-14

Section 15.5.1,p.57 says:

   Contact:  Ben Campbell ([email-masked]).
   Author/Change Controller:  This is a permanent registration request.
      Change control does not apply.

It should say:

   Contact:  Ben Campbell ([email-masked]).
|  Author/Change Controller:  IESG.

Notes:

(This only is a proposal.)

Rationale: Congratulations! The registrant seems to have achieved
immortality, and/or his email address guaranteed to be perpetual. :-)

More seriously: cf. Section 3 of RFC 2434.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended status:  (correct) Hold for document update

Similar considerations apply to section 15.5.2.

The IANA database entry for MSRP
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html) appears to contain
only a pointer to RFC 4975, and all of the information presented in
the registration template in RFC 4975 seems to be either fixed for all
time or other references into RFC 4975.

Looking at published RFCs, there are 865 instances of "Change
controller:" for various IANA-registered entities.  Of these, 670
(77%) list the author as the change controller.  This may not be a
particularly good practice, but changing the registered change
controller to "IESG" or "IETF" doesn't make any difference -- the IETF
as represented by the IESG can always update registrations.
======================================================================

Dale