I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document Tag: draft-wilde-sms-uri-13
Document Title: URI Scheme for GSM Short Message Service
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Shepherding AD: Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reviewer: Michael A. Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Review Date: 06-Nov-2007
IESG Telechat Date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
There is one dangling reference in the ABNF description that must be
fixed for the document to provide for an unambiguous implementation.
Major concern
-------------
1.3.3 item 1 refers to "gstn-phone" which was not defined by the ABNF.
Did you intend this to refer to the "sms-number" or
"sms-recipient"? If so, the proper one should be substituted,
otherwise "gstn-phone" needs to be defined.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience
of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review.
Clarity
-------
Section 1: idnits complains about the 2119 boilerplate. I expect
that's because you added a sentence in front of it. But, that
sentence, "Compliant software MUST follow this specification"
is a tautology. Furthermore that sentence uses a capitalized
MUST before the RFC2119 reference defines it. I don't think
that sentence needs to be there. But, if you must have it, I
think it should come after the definition of what "MUST" means.
Section 1 is titled "Introduction" but contains normative language.
In fact, the "Introduction" is essentially the entire
document. I think that section 1 should be split so each
subsection becomes a section (i.e. the paragraph in 1 is
section 1, 1.1 is section 2, 1.2 is section 3) retaining the
subdivisions below but with one less layer.
Appendix A seems extraneous for a published RFC.
idnits reports:
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See
Section 2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html for how to
handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2279 (Obsoleted by RFC 3629)
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2822' is defined on line 851, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Typos
-----
1.2.2.1: "is not subject of this memo"
=> "is outside the scope of this memo"
2.4 is just awkward language structure, I suggest instead:
The "sms" scheme defines a way that a message may be composed which
is then transmitted using the SMS message transmission method.
This scheme can thus be compared to the "mailto" URI scheme
[RFC2368]. See Section 1.3.3 for the details of operation.
2.6 is also awkward, I suggest:
The "sms" URI scheme is intended to be used in a manner similar to
the "mailto" URI scheme [RFC2368]. By using "sms" URIs, authors
can embed information into documents which can be used as a
starting point for initiating message composition. Whether the
client is sending the message itself (for example over a GSM air
interface) or redirecting the user to a third party for message
composition (such as a Web service for sending SMS messages) is
outside of the scope of the URI scheme definition.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
