The tel URI for Telephone Numbers
draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09

[Ballot comment]
5.1.1: contradictory -- clarify last paragraph.  (Why is there extra indentation?)  When you say "cannot", do you mean "MUST NOT" or "SHOULD NOT"?

5.1.3: Why (backslash)# instead of #

5.1.5: Extra indentation

[Ballot comment]
Question: Does this doc obsolete/replace 2806, Or is it just revising
a piece of 2806, so it basically updates 2806?

Whatever the answer, it should probably be mentioned in teh abstract.

[Ballot discuss]
The "reserved" and "uric" productions use '|' for alternation; '/' is correct in ABNF (and all of the other productions use those).  This can easily be fixed by an RFC Editor note.

[Ballot comment]
Please spell out IVR. It is only used once.

  The document does uses columbia.edu in places where example.com
  ought to be used.

  The use of quotes is very inconsistent in this document.  I kept
  wondering if there was a reason, but I finally conclude that there
  is not any meaning to the various styles.  Please pick one style
  and use it everywhere.  The quoted string "tel" appears at least
  three different ways in various places:
 
    1.  The ``tel'' URI ...
    2.  The "tel" URI ...
    3.  The 'tel' URI ...

[Ballot comment]
5.1.1: contradictory -- clarify last paragraph.  (Why is there extra indentation?)  When you say "cannot", do you mean "MUST NOT" or "SHOULD NOT"?

5.1.3: Why # instead of #

5.1.5: Extra indentation

[Ballot comment]
The document uses a number of telephone numbers which are not in the example
sets (e.g. 555-1234, which is allocated according to http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/
form555MasterReport.do?method=display555MasterReport).

I'm not sure what to do about that , though, as it would be very hard to give the
range of uses while sticking to the relatively small number of allocations for examples
(I know of UK and NANP allocations, but cannot readily suggest others).  Do folks think
a disclaimer of some kind is in order here, or should this just be left as-is?

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3 of the document discusses URI syntax, and uses the phrase "escaped" to
describe how delimeters are treated.  This section of 2396 was extensively revised
in 2396bis, after the old language led to considerable confusion.  The new phrasings,
based on "percent encoding" and "decoding" specific characters seem to be clearer,
especially in cases where the characters may appear both percent encoded and as
delimeters.  See:  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-05.txt
(Section 2).

I believe the author could use the new language without changing which document
is the normative reference, since the characters themselves have not changed.  I
would appreciate the author considering it.