Re: small comments on 2806bis-04

Thanks for catching these straggler plurals. I think I nuked them all. 
While I was in the IANA section, I also added a note that mandatory 
``tel'' parameters must be documented in an informational or 
standards-track RFC. I don't think this is strictly necessary, but it 
greatly helps interoperability, I believe. This ensures some review, as 
a proliferation of mandatory parameters would not be helpful.

Are we ready for an informal WGLC? (As noted, this will also need to be 
reviewed in SIPPING and SIP, but I wanted to make sure that this WG is 
reasonably happy first.)

Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> Hi Henning, folks,
> 
> Two comments for 2806bis-04.
> Typos:
> line 187: Clarification - should 'URI schemes' be 'URI scheme'?
> similarly...
> line 322: these URI schemes/this URI scheme/ ?
> line 308: c/be /been/
> 
> Possibly add a sentence in the IANA considerations section to state:
> 'Any parameter that should be considered as mandatory should be prefixed 
> by "m-" as described in section 5.3'.
> 
> Apart from that, I for one think it's fine.
> I can read it, can understand how to test it, and the URI syntax is much 
> cleaner.
> 
> (Now we can complicate it with 'tel:' URI parameter drafts :).
> 
> all the best,
>   Lawrence