RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (4)
RFC 5724, "URI Scheme for Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) Short Message Service (SMS)", January 2010
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 2784
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-04-18
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Section 2.2 says:
2.2. Formal Definition The URI scheme's keywords specified in the following syntax description are case-insensitive. The syntax of an "sms" URI is formally described as follows, where the URI base syntax is taken from [RFC3986]: sms-uri = scheme ":" sms-hier-part [ "?" sms-fields ] scheme = "sms" sms-hier-part = sms-recipient *( "," sms-recipient ) sms-recipient = telephone-subscriber ; defined in RFC 3966 sms-fields = sms-field *( "&" sms-field ) sms-field = sms-field-name "=" escaped-value sms-field-name = "body" / sms-field-ext ; "body" MUST only appear once sms-field-ext = 1*( unreserved ) escaped-value = *( unreserved / pct-encoded ) ; defined in RFC 3986
It should say:
2.2. Formal Definition The URI scheme's keywords specified in the following syntax description are case-insensitive. The syntax of an "sms" URI is formally described as follows, where the URI base syntax is taken from [RFC3986]: sms-uri = scheme ":" sms-hier-part [ "?" sms-fields ] scheme = "sms" sms-hier-part = sms-recipient *( "," sms-recipient ) sms-recipient = telephone-subscriber ; defined in RFC 3966 sms-fields = no-body / body-first / body-middle-last no-body = sms-field *( "&" sms-field ) ; <sms-fields> part without the "body" field body-first = body-field *( "&" sms-field ) ; <sms-fields> part with the "body" field ; at the first place body-middle-last = sms-field *( "&" sms-field ) "&" body-field *( "&" sms-field ) ; <sms-fields> part with the "body" field ; in the middle or at the end sms-field = sms-field-name "=" escaped-value body-field = "body=" escaped-value sms-field-name = 1*( unreserved ) escaped-value = *( unreserved / pct-encoded ) ; defined in RFC 3986
Notes:
The syntax I propose represents that "body" field can occur in the URI only once while the current one does not reveal this.
Errata ID: 1996
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-01-10
Held for Document Update by: Lisa Dusseault
Section 2.4 says:
a) first bullet (near bottom of page 9): v | o Both must be either a <local-number> or a <global-number<, i.e., start with a "+". b) last paragraph (page 10): Since "sms" URIs can contain multiple <telephone-subscriber>s as well | as <sms-fields>, in addition to adopting the rules defined for comparing <telephone-subscriber>s as defined by [RFC3966], two "sms" URIs are only equivalent if their <sms-fields> are identical, and if all <telephone-subscriber>s, compared pairwise as a set (i.e., without taking sequence into consideration), are equivalent.
It should say:
a) v | o Both must be either a <local-number> or a <global-number>, i.e., start with a "+". b) Since "sms" URIs can contain multiple <telephone-subscriber>s as well | as <sms-field>s, in addition to adopting the rules defined for comparing <telephone-subscriber>s as defined by [RFC3966], two "sms" URIs are only equivalent if their <sms-fields> are identical, and if all <telephone-subscriber>s, compared pairwise as a set (i.e., without taking sequence into consideration), are equivalent.
Notes:
Rationale:
a) Distorting typo.
b) Although there is a rule '<sms-fields>', the components of it
are meant here, in plural: <sms-field>s .
Errata ID: 2672
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Charles Curran
Date Reported: 2010-12-16
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Section Document says:
< This is really pre-erratum. RFC5724 narrows / focuses the applicability of the SMS URI to GSM. GSM isn't (that) relevant: SMS has moved on in the last 25 years! Some countries, eg S.Korea, do not use/have GMS, but *CDMA* instead. >
It should say:
<n/a — RFC ¿rewrite?>
Notes:
Current SMS availability…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS:
1985… Since then, support for the service has expanded to include other mobile technologies such as ANSI CDMA networks and Digital AMPS, as well as satellite and landline networks.
Errata ID: 2690
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-01-21
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Throughout the document, when it says:
RFC 5724 sms" URI Scheme January 2010
It should say:
RFC 5724 "sms" URI Scheme January 2010
Notes:
That is a typographical error.