Subject: [RAI] Erratum report on erratum 1604 on RFC 5347, "MGCP Fax Package"

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:07:56 -0500

======================================================================
RFC5347, "Media Gateway Control Protocol Fax Package"
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: rai

Errata ID: 1604

Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-11-17

Section 3.3, pg.37 says:

<<  last line of first paragraph >>:

   Once again, the originating fax does not generate CNG tone.

It should say:

   Once again, the originating fax does not generate a CNG tone.
                                                    ^^^

Notes:

Rationale: Missing indefiniet article; it should be used
consistently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended status:  (incorrect) Rejected

Thinking about this some more (and in contradiction to my report on
erratum 1602 on this RFC), the intention of the text is to use "CNG
tone" as a mass noun, and so it does not take an indefinite article.

I believe that use of such phrases as "CNG tone" as a mass noun is
more common in British English than American English.  This RFC
appears to follow the British convention, with the sole exception of
the first line of "Steps 9-12" on page 33 of section 3.2, which I now
consider to be an error.
======================================================================

Dale

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:22:29 -0600

Dale - I'm going to put this into hold for document update along with your note.
If/when the document is touched again, the folks working on it will know to be consistent.

Thanks again for helping review all of these.

(Everyone else - Dale's carrying more than his fair share of the load here - we could use some more folks' help).

RjS

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:41:51 -0500

> From: Robert Sparks [[email-masked]]
> 
> I'm going to put this into hold for document update along with your note.

Yes, makes sense -- there isn't a single right answer.

> Thanks again for helping review all of these.

You're welcome!

Dale