Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-wilde-sms-uri-18.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:04:02 +0200

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: draft-wilde-sms-uri-18.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 12 Aug 2009

Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

I reviewed version -16 and -17 of this document raising a few issues. All 
of the have been solved now. I only have some minor editorial comments.

Nits/editorial comments:

- In the ABNF of Section 2.2, the comment about the "body" is one line 
above the introduction of "body", so the correct ABNF should be:

sms-field       =  sms-field-name "=" escaped-value
sms-field-name  =  "body" / sms-field-ext ; "body" MUST only
                                           ; appear once

(please be careful to avoid that "appear once" does not exceed the 72 
characters limit).

- On a similar topic... I am not comfortable to see that a normative 
statement such as "body MUST only appear once" is buried as a comment 
(after the semicolon) in the ABNF. I would like to see this sentence as 
a proper statement in the discussion that follows the ABNF, when the text 
discuses the "body" <sms-field>.

- On Section 2.2, 3rd paragraph after the ABNF blob the first three 
sentences include a high degree of redundancy and are somehow unordered. 
How about this?

OLD:
    SMS URIs may use additional fields, as indicated by the <sms-fields>
    token.  The only field defined here is the "body" <sms-field>.
    Extensions to this specification MAY add additional fields.

NEW:
     This specification defines a single <sms-field>: "body". Extentions
     to this specification MAY define additional fields.

- Section 8.2 should be titled "Informative References".

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:10:45 -0700

hello miguel.

thanks for the email, and thanks for reviewing the draft.

> (please be careful to avoid that "appear once" does not exceed the 72 

i have moved the comment and it still fits the 72 character length limit.

> a proper statement in the discussion that follows the ABNF, when the 
> text discuses the "body" <sms-field>.

that's a good point. the paragraph starting with:

'The "body" <sms-field> is used to define the body of the SMS message to 
be composed.'

now starts with this (second sentence added to address your concerns):

'The "body" <sms-field> is used to define the body of the SMS message to 
be composed. It MUST not appear more than once in an "sms" URI.'

>     to this specification MAY define additional fields.

done.

> - Section 8.2 should be titled "Informative References".

done. thanks and kind regards,

erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
        [email-masked]  -  http://dret.net/netdret
        UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:48:15 +0200

Sounds good.

/Miguel

Erik Wilde wrote:
>> (after the semicolon) in the ABNF. I would like to see this sentence 
>> as a proper statement in the discussion that follows the ABNF, when 
>> the text discuses the "body" <sms-field>.
> 
>> sentences include a high degree of redundancy and are somehow 
>> unordered. How about this?
>> OLD:

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain