From nobody Fri Jun 5 08:08:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADAE1B30BE for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rphDeBxeSvLf for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-po-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-12v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB3831B30BC for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.226]) by resqmta-po-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id cf6u1q0024tLnxL01f8fYu; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:08:39 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id cf8e1q00W3Ge9ey01f8f6d; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: <5571BB75.5040008@alum.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:08:37 -0400 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iptel@ietf.org References: <20150526154737.6666D180207@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1433516919; bh=w7W+NSnrdwp5HaJLKqK2gdyDssvQyA9ly5S5Syd8/kw=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=aggv6J2JPKnNNr9kLDl+yBjodwD38Tsz4MNyevuZlq2rMl6dBO/nLnxncxb70hums JqehyBGLvokSadw96+QstVzrYd9YhAa+T/EZ379FTzrm8wgz6PwqZtZxRh1PxrP7EI f2NIUT/X4GqlnaLn9cMdEqa2HgsTUlaWRuKQ/2cfViX9G8Ekf4o6qpu6JfnRnfW655 tCoOEeOMoI4zpyqNALel+bnwzlfWxajGOWEo46ngOIsO76+bRFKnGACkhMfkSn7Gb2 JKGC2QZGDqswX/DD4h7/Ywx4WXHAKq1XPamplqTh6ijLOh2aWZLjP74jQz+Ka9BBXc QQ3eiV27cUbEA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Iptel] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3966 (4376) X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:08:41 -0000 On 5/27/15 7:30 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: > Hi, > > phonedigit is used in an extension rule. > > extension = ";ext=" 1*phonedigit > > if the original definition is correct, I think a following > description is valid. > > tel:1234;ext=;phone-context=example.com > > May an extension number be an empty string? That would be bad. But your errata fix isn't sufficient for extension because it would allow an extension including only visual-separators. ISTM that to complete the fix the rule for extension also needs to be changed to: extension = ";ext=" *phonedigit DIGIT *phonedigit > At the very start what is the reason why visual-separator became an > optional rule? I don't know. It certainly seems to have been a mistake. > according to the document history, > > RFC2806 > phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator > > draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-01 > phonedigit = DIGIT [ visual-separator ] > phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG [ visual-separator ] > > draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-02 > phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] > phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] Thanks, Paul > Anydody know the intent of this fix? > > Regards, > Shinji > >> This errata should be rejected. >> >> - Jason >> >> >> >> On 5/26/15, 11:47 AM, "RFC Errata System" >> wrote: >> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3966, >>> "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3966&eid=4376 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Editorial >>> Reported by: OKUMURA Shinji >>> >>> Section: 3 >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >>> >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator; >>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator; >>> >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless. >>> >>> Instructions: >>> ------------- >>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC3966 (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : The tel URI for Telephone Numbers >>> Publication Date : December 2004 >>> Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>> Source : IP Telephony >>> Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure >>> Stream : IETF >>> Verifying Party : IESG >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Iptel mailing list >>> Iptel@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Iptel mailing list > Iptel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel > From nobody Mon Jun 8 03:11:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4085A1A891E for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.599 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_FAKE=3.899, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2pzwVgddB8v for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F36F71A891C for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so101401798pdb.2 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:11:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:message-id; bh=+fzSqvjxf8pxBvoJGkVi23Fk06/bMGa8XNt2PLa1gxk=; b=EOiL8WIy/SM+SPvj6HdY8k+/Bwn3tFs6WLBL547DRD0YNV3cEuwY4MmjAGqXXDPxj4 9qYnat6XCkirZSvvOjcFQ5nWEvFqG6iiLyRdXKtYdoz7aqYJyXRgy8qTD5gKcg96XxrY UYaNFc4WLarg8VbEq+05G4FTg0/Yc12VlAIW3LYRjTgpJlDNbq2mRKa4agTFgF3pQ78S r2TLSJNQiSKbeXVDHD4q88we81LKBkeHnTkFp0gC9uYrrU3zqkKWDnMLUBRKWdTDzeS8 M3GvcAyvBQiYvLeQ7xxb+u/DCpqOcbChRGKMtvIRn9ZFIW6N6aAyqeJsgE/fwifAFp5T S3Hw== X-Received: by 10.66.160.71 with SMTP id xi7mr27954629pab.19.1433758315658; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (x156176.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [122.249.156.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id to6sm2089171pbc.19.2015.06.08.03.11.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:11:53 -0700 (PDT) From: OKUMURA Shinji To: Paul Kyzivat Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 19:11:46 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: HidemaruMail 6.43 (WinNT,603) In-Reply-To: <5571BB75.5040008@alum.mit.edu> References: <20150526154737.6666D180207@rfc-editor.org> <5571BB75.5040008@alum.mit.edu> Message-Id: Archived-At: Cc: iptel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Iptel] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3966 (4376) X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:11:57 -0000 Hi Paul, >On 5/27/15 7:30 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: >> Hi, >> >> phonedigit is used in an extension rule. >> >> extension = ";ext=" 1*phonedigit >> >> if the original definition is correct, I think a following >> description is valid. >> >> tel:1234;ext=;phone-context=example.com >> >> May an extension number be an empty string? > >That would be bad. > >But your errata fix isn't sufficient for extension because it would >allow an extension including only visual-separators. ISTM that to >complete the fix the rule for extension also needs to be changed to: > > extension = ";ext=" *phonedigit DIGIT *phonedigit I see, and IIUC this is reducible as below. extension = ";ext=" *visual-separator DIGIT *phonedigit The two are equivalent, but from a parser implementor's perspective the latter is better (I think). Regards, Shinji >> At the very start what is the reason why visual-separator became an >> optional rule? > >I don't know. It certainly seems to have been a mistake. > >> according to the document history, >> >> RFC2806 >> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator >> >> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-01 >> phonedigit = DIGIT [ visual-separator ] >> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG [ visual-separator ] >> >> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-02 >> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] > > Thanks, > Paul > >> Anydody know the intent of this fix? >> >> Regards, >> Shinji >> >>> This errata should be rejected. >>> >>> - Jason >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/26/15, 11:47 AM, "RFC Errata System" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3966, >>>> "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers". >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3966&eid=4376 >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Type: Editorial >>>> Reported by: OKUMURA Shinji >>>> >>>> Section: 3 >>>> >>>> Original Text >>>> ------------- >>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >>>> >>>> >>>> Corrected Text >>>> -------------- >>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator; >>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator; >>>> >>>> >>>> Notes >>>> ----- >>>> An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless. >>>> >>>> Instructions: >>>> ------------- >>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC3966 (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09) >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Title : The tel URI for Telephone Numbers >>>> Publication Date : December 2004 >>>> Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne >>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>>> Source : IP Telephony >>>> Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure >>>> Stream : IETF >>>> Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Mon Jun 8 07:22:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386831A88FE for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:22:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GFwcEgFgz8rE for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945C71A88E9 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.101]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id dqMs1q0022Bo0NV01qNr50; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:22:51 +0000 Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id dqNr1q00B3Ge9ey01qNrVM; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:22:51 +0000 Message-ID: <5575A53B.80205@alum.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:22:51 -0400 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OKUMURA Shinji References: <20150526154737.6666D180207@rfc-editor.org> <5571BB75.5040008@alum.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1433773371; bh=bkjAJQ0N8b0MjvTgy2g40eFskXYm9dAQaFJmnN4JOr0=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=u0W522FJrUQxAe6l4CkufhXvygoxmf7Nez3h/l6WZgXRMMffebezhJ2/FPNV7kZeZ D4tLcX93gGciY6Brmbfddj9G5iYCXl+TuDcRo69jwNI7VFZTCMY2tTFg6oX254oW0S 7SDcjrKCJ61NSPA88A+jDKg4OoNEWpiVcGp/8H9IVqHMaZRMHXE6Qs2QPUYKAPM65v ntDsG80HfYphtfHTntAdiUNvB7dEa+/0nn2vUSfqUDDGfIJTmqyDLJLON2BdA6kOqB STwP4Oa7RBXFTal5fgrwubviyCQGxUAVjI8uM4T4aaujPejKbOkX5Ieq2Rd/qA4JSf RwAF0tmKCU1NQ== Archived-At: Cc: iptel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Iptel] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3966 (4376) X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:22:54 -0000 On 6/8/15 6:11 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> On 5/27/15 7:30 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> phonedigit is used in an extension rule. >>> >>> extension = ";ext=" 1*phonedigit >>> >>> if the original definition is correct, I think a following >>> description is valid. >>> >>> tel:1234;ext=;phone-context=example.com >>> >>> May an extension number be an empty string? >> >> That would be bad. >> >> But your errata fix isn't sufficient for extension because it would >> allow an extension including only visual-separators. ISTM that to >> complete the fix the rule for extension also needs to be changed to: >> >> extension = ";ext=" *phonedigit DIGIT *phonedigit > > I see, and IIUC this is reducible as below. > > extension = ";ext=" *visual-separator DIGIT *phonedigit > > The two are equivalent, but from a parser implementor's perspective > the latter is better (I think). I agree the two are equivalent. I think one can argue about which is easier to understand. But for clarity I do think the same construction ought to be used in both the definition of extension and global-number-digits. For an errata I think it is preferable to minimize the changes to the text, so I think I favor using the form currently used in global-number-digits. (If there was to be another bis, then that would be a good time to change it. And then, I think I would define a new rule for this construction, that would then be used in both global-number-digits and extension.) Thanks, Paul > Regards, > Shinji > >>> At the very start what is the reason why visual-separator became an >>> optional rule? >> >> I don't know. It certainly seems to have been a mistake. >> >>> according to the document history, >>> >>> RFC2806 >>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator >>> >>> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-01 >>> phonedigit = DIGIT [ visual-separator ] >>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG [ visual-separator ] >>> >>> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-02 >>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >>> Anydody know the intent of this fix? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Shinji >>> >>>> This errata should be rejected. >>>> >>>> - Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/26/15, 11:47 AM, "RFC Errata System" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3966, >>>>> "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers". >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3966&eid=4376 >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Type: Editorial >>>>> Reported by: OKUMURA Shinji >>>>> >>>>> Section: 3 >>>>> >>>>> Original Text >>>>> ------------- >>>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Corrected Text >>>>> -------------- >>>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator; >>>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Notes >>>>> ----- >>>>> An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless. >>>>> >>>>> Instructions: >>>>> ------------- >>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> RFC3966 (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09) >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Title : The tel URI for Telephone Numbers >>>>> Publication Date : December 2004 >>>>> Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne >>>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>>>> Source : IP Telephony >>>>> Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure >>>>> Stream : IETF >>>>> Verifying Party : IESG > From nobody Tue Jun 9 00:11:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2412D1B29BF for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 00:11:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.899 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_FAKE=3.899, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mCTQNcIK7nZ4 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 00:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x241.google.com (mail-pa0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D671B29C6 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 00:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pabli10 with SMTP id li10so2621438pab.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:11:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:message-id; bh=Gx2gqHUaDfdbdubUu6c3enRUmZtHkxuBIR8ObTq4B04=; b=jyoQVu9zSCZYo2QkeUKx9gkLim8y5RkgqwJtP73OZRpGN4jNDh1TGOlANhnqXNsoLE vvQi3zr+/X3rSXCPirSKggXyx8Bdk0FI/OPCPO8s3TP3pV6XXPL73AyZkzQn8Q392J2k RvVNY/gxS2MRUW9QVkYVos6gQLTG781NKaS0IJaXgHYBk11QBUwzkVyMT3//TKvYVCjh g2wWj80u1aUim2DeUaVOXTzsdMjPQ8K+RoZVYDeTyUhVwak5RUDoPlY6bATvYJW8kTAt sWAulqpEvMlH5+tnM5ZkLI7Wp4TDij7PYewdV7qjunT6BTyTYCAY3Koi0gjrfoO7ngpR gXLw== X-Received: by 10.70.91.136 with SMTP id ce8mr30737416pdb.29.1433833907150; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (x156176.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [122.249.156.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tr3sm1590795pbc.75.2015.06.09.00.11.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:11:46 -0700 (PDT) From: OKUMURA Shinji To: Paul Kyzivat Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:11:39 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: HidemaruMail 6.43 (WinNT,603) In-Reply-To: <5575A53B.80205@alum.mit.edu> References: <5571BB75.5040008@alum.mit.edu> <5575A53B.80205@alum.mit.edu> Message-Id: Archived-At: Cc: ben@nostrum.com, jdrosen@cisco.com, iptel@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, RFC Errata System , hgs@cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Iptel] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3966 (4376) X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:11:49 -0000 Paul Kyzivat wrote: >On 6/8/15 6:11 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >>> On 5/27/15 7:30 AM, OKUMURA Shinji wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> phonedigit is used in an extension rule. >>>> >>>> extension = ";ext=" 1*phonedigit >>>> >>>> if the original definition is correct, I think a following >>>> description is valid. >>>> >>>> tel:1234;ext=;phone-context=example.com >>>> >>>> May an extension number be an empty string? >>> >>> That would be bad. >>> >>> But your errata fix isn't sufficient for extension because it would >>> allow an extension including only visual-separators. ISTM that to >>> complete the fix the rule for extension also needs to be changed to: >>> >>> extension = ";ext=" *phonedigit DIGIT *phonedigit >> >> I see, and IIUC this is reducible as below. >> >> extension = ";ext=" *visual-separator DIGIT *phonedigit >> >> The two are equivalent, but from a parser implementor's perspective >> the latter is better (I think). > >I agree the two are equivalent. I think one can argue about which is >easier to understand. I would like to add one more thing. According to the former, it is hard to determine whether a first DIGIT is phonedigit or DIGIT. >But for clarity I do think the same construction >ought to be used in both the definition of extension and >global-number-digits. For an errata I think it is preferable to minimize >the changes to the text, so I think I favor using the form currently >used in global-number-digits. I agree with you. >(If there was to be another bis, then that would be a good time to >change it. And then, I think I would define a new rule for this >construction, that would then be used in both global-number-digits and >extension.) I quite agree. Regards, Shinji >>>> At the very start what is the reason why visual-separator became an >>>> optional rule? >>> >>> I don't know. It certainly seems to have been a mistake. >>> >>>> according to the document history, >>>> >>>> RFC2806 >>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-01 >>>> phonedigit = DIGIT [ visual-separator ] >>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG [ visual-separator ] >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-02 >>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Paul >>> >>>> Anydody know the intent of this fix? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Shinji >>>> >>>>> This errata should be rejected. >>>>> >>>>> - Jason >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/26/15, 11:47 AM, "RFC Errata System" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3966, >>>>>> "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers". >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> You may review the report below and at: >>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3966&eid=4376 >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> Type: Editorial >>>>>> Reported by: OKUMURA Shinji >>>>>> >>>>>> Section: 3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Original Text >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] >>>>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Corrected Text >>>>>> -------------- >>>>>> phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator; >>>>>> phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Notes >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instructions: >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >>>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >>>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >>>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> RFC3966 (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09) >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> Title : The tel URI for Telephone Numbers >>>>>> Publication Date : December 2004 >>>>>> Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne >>>>>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>>>>> Source : IP Telephony >>>>>> Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure >>>>>> Stream : IETF >>>>>> Verifying Party : IESG >> From nobody Tue Jun 9 06:59:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iptel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845711A872E; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:59:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8u_qnEFvd4Kb; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AF41A8715; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 44B85180206; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf.shinji@gmail.com, hgs@cs.columbia.edu X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20150609135657.44B85180206@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: iptel@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Iptel] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3966 (4376) X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IP Telephony List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:59:20 -0000 The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC3966, "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3966&eid=4376 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: OKUMURA Shinji Date Reported: 2015-05-26 Held by: Ben Campbell (IESG) Section: 3 Original Text ------------- phonedigit = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ] phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ] Corrected Text -------------- phonedigit = DIGIT / visual-separator; phonedigit-hex = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator; Notes ----- An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless. -------------------------------------- RFC3966 (draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09) -------------------------------------- Title : The tel URI for Telephone Numbers Publication Date : December 2004 Author(s) : H. Schulzrinne Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Telephony Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG