The tel URI for Telephone Numbers
RFC 3966

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Mark Allman, gen-ART

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-07)
No email
send info
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?

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-09 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  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 ...

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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.

(Alex Zinin) No Objection