Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 4 records.

Status:Verified (2)

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

Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 5341

Errata ID:202
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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

Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 5341

Errata ID:702
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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 schemesRFC 3966 re-defines the "tel" URI scheme and obsoletes RFC 2806which 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 regardingthe latter URIs.Hence it is not clear whether these URIs are to be regarded asinformally "deprecated" or "de-registered" by this RFC, and thereforeshould 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 changedto say "Updates: 2806" instead of "Obsoletes: 2806", and anothererrata note should be filed to change the RFC 3966 headingaccordingly, 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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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