RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 3966, "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", December 2004

Source of RFC: iptel (rai)

Errata ID: 202

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-12-04
Verifier Name: Henning Schulzrinne
Date Verified: 2004-12-04

Section 5.1.5 says:

        +1-212-555-1 would not be a valid global context, ...

It should say:

        +1-212-555-01 would not be a valid global context, ...

Notes:

Although tiny typo, it could possibly be distorting the meaning.

Errata ID: 203

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Henning Schulzrinne
Date Reported: 2005-03-01

Section 3 says:

isdn-subaddress      = ";isub=" 1*uric

It should say:

isdn-subaddress      = ";isub=" 1*paramchar

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 3966, "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", December 2004

Source of RFC: iptel (rai)

Errata ID: 702

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-12-04
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

Section 12 says:

Fate of "fax" and "modem" URI schemes

RFC 3966 re-defines the "tel" URI scheme and obsoletes RFC 2806
which defined (and registered) three URI schemes: "tel", "fax",
and "modem". Section 12 of RFC 3966 (on page 15) merely states:

"references to ... fax and modem URIs ... have been removed."


There are *no* IANA considerations included in RFC 3966 regarding
the latter URIs.

Hence it is not clear whether these URIs are to be regarded as
informally "deprecated" or "de-registered" by this RFC, and therefore
should be marked accordingly in the IANA 'URI Schemes' reqistry.

If however, by existing policy, URI schemes cannot be "deprecated"
or "de-registered", the RFC 3966 meta-information should be changed
to say "Updates: 2806" instead of "Obsoletes: 2806", and another
errata note should be filed to change the RFC 3966 heading
accordingly, to avoid the situation of having no more 'valid'
documentation for two registered URI schemes.

It should say:

[see above] 

Notes:

The fate of the "fax" and "modem" URI schemes should be made clear,
formally, and in an appropriate way.

Henning Schulzrinne:
Requires discussion in the IPTEL working group, where I suggest you
take this discussion. I have my personal opinions as to the deployment
and deployability of the 'fax' URI scheme, but that's not particularly
relevant. I suspect a separate document that performs the appropriate
designation (e.g., historical) would be called for, rather than changing
3996.


from pending

Errata ID: 4376

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: OKUMURA Shinji
Date Reported: 2015-05-26
Held for Document Update by: Ben Campbell
Date Held: 2015-06-09

Section 3 says:

phonedigit           = DIGIT / [ visual-separator ]
phonedigit-hex       = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / [ visual-separator ]

It should say:

phonedigit           = DIGIT / visual-separator;
phonedigit-hex       = HEXDIG / "*" / "#" / visual-separator;

Notes:

An optional and alternative rule is typically meaningless.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×