Re: Comments on RFC2806bis

> The "*other" part of the global-number and local-number productions seem to have
> been replaced with "*param" in "telephone-uri", however Section 5.3 still talks
> about "<other>".

Oops; fixed.

> 
> Question regarding naming of the "other" parameters:    Is the "m-" a prefix that
> can be added to any extension parameter, or must an extension parameter be defined
> and registered with an "m-" prefix from the start ?

My intent was to register it with the m- prefix from the start. I think 
it would complicate parsers if they had to worry about the same 
parameter having two names. Can you envision that the same parameter 
sometimes will be required, sometimes be optional? To me, that type of 
parameter probably assumes too much about knowing the receiver.

> 
> 
> Nit comments:
> ==========
> Section 5.1.2:    "as as" => "as"
> 
> Section 5.3:    "in the BNF" = "in the ABNF"
> 
> Section 6:    "human- readable" => "human-readable"
> 
> Section 7.2:    `Telephone" => "Telephone" (first double-qoute formatting)
> 

Thanks!

Henning