Subject: [Gen-art] GenART review: draft-wilde-sms-uri-13

From: "Michael A. Patton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:59:53 -0500 (EST)

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document Tag: draft-wilde-sms-uri-13
Document Title: URI Scheme for GSM Short Message Service
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Shepherding AD:  Lisa Dusseault [[email-masked]]
Reviewer: Michael A. Patton [[email-masked]]
Review Date:  06-Nov-2007
IESG Telechat Date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
There is one dangling reference in the ABNF description that must be
fixed for the document to provide for an unambiguous implementation.

Major concern
-------------

1.3.3 item 1 refers to "gstn-phone" which was not defined by the ABNF.
	Did you intend this to refer to the "sms-number" or
	"sms-recipient"?  If so, the proper one should be substituted,
	otherwise "gstn-phone" needs to be defined.

----------------------------------------------------------------
   The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience
   of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review.

Clarity
-------

Section 1: idnits complains about the 2119 boilerplate.  I expect
	that's because you added a sentence in front of it.  But, that
	sentence, "Compliant software MUST follow this specification"
	is a tautology.  Furthermore that sentence uses a capitalized
	MUST before the RFC2119 reference defines it.  I don't think
	that sentence needs to be there.  But, if you must have it, I
	think it should come after the definition of what "MUST" means.

Section 1 is titled "Introduction" but contains normative language.
	In fact, the "Introduction" is essentially the entire
	document.  I think that section 1 should be split so each
	subsection becomes a section (i.e. the paragraph in 1 is
	section 1, 1.1 is section 2, 1.2 is section 3) retaining the
	subdivisions below but with one less layer.

Appendix A seems extraneous for a published RFC.

idnits reports:

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See
     Section 2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html for how to
     handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2279 (Obsoleted by RFC 3629)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2822' is defined on line 851, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

Typos
-----

1.2.2.1: "is not subject of this memo"
	 => "is outside the scope of this memo"

2.4 is just awkward language structure, I suggest instead:

   The "sms" scheme defines a way that a message may be composed which
   is then transmitted using the SMS message transmission method.
   This scheme can thus be compared to the "mailto" URI scheme
   [RFC2368].  See Section 1.3.3 for the details of operation.

2.6 is also awkward, I suggest:

   The "sms" URI scheme is intended to be used in a manner similar to
   the "mailto" URI scheme [RFC2368].  By using "sms" URIs, authors
   can embed information into documents which can be used as a
   starting point for initiating message composition.  Whether the
   client is sending the message itself (for example over a GSM air
   interface) or redirecting the user to a third party for message
   composition (such as a Web service for sending SMS messages) is
   outside of the scope of the URI scheme definition.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art