[salud] Updates for section 5
worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 26 March 2013 20:30 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A0821F8D1E for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.627, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cOMTXPtG+uj for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8BE21F8D7F for <salud@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2QKTFkS024270 for <salud@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:29:17 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r2QKTFdj1224285 for <salud@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:29:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r2QKTFCY1219207; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:29:15 -0400
Message-Id: <201303262029.r2QKTFCY1219207@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: salud@ietf.org
Subject: [salud] Updates for section 5
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:30:03 -0000
We use the term "entities" for whoever defined a private extension.
The -07 text for section 5 uses the term "independent organization",
which I've corrected here. But what term do we want to use?
"organization" is closer to ordinary English use, but strictly
speaking, an individual can define private extensions as well, and
they aren't an "organization. Is there a standard term for use in
RFCs?
Dale
@@ -40,8 +48,8 @@
to be present containing the "appearance" parameter, but no special
ringtone need be specified.
- The "<private-name>" syntax is used for extensions specific to
- independent organizations, as described in Section 7.2.
+ The "<private-name>" syntax is used for extensions defined by
+ independent entities, as described in Section 7.2.
5.2.1. Alert-Info URN Indication Values for the alert-category
'service'
@@ -124,7 +132,7 @@
- <private-name>
- Examples: urn:alert:delay:yes .
+ Examples: urn:alert:delay:yes.
- [salud] Updates for section 5 Dale R. Worley