errata logo graphic

Found 4 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (4)

RFC5724, "URI Scheme for Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) Short Message Service (SMS)", January 2010

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 2784

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

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

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

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

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.


Report New Errata