Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 23 May 2011 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B22E0818 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id leUdhtTDZ2um for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F076E067B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-158.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-158.cisco.com [64.101.72.158]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2CF140046 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:26:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DDADF21.108@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:26:41 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20110523221903.11394.18650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110523221903.11394.18650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms030700060600000506000508"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:26:44 -0000

The first paragraph of the Introduction contains a few infelicities and
grammatical errors. I suggest modifying it as follows:

   RFC 5892 [RFC5892] specifies an algorithm that was defined when
   the current version of The Unicode Standard was Unicode 5.2
   [Unicode5.2], and also defines a derived property value based on
   that algorithm.  Unicode 6.0 has changed the GeneralCategory of
   three code points that were allocated in Unicode 5.2 or earlier.
   This implies that the derived property value differs depending on
   whether the property definitions used are from Unicode 5.2 or
   Unicode 6.0.

On 5/23/11 4:19 PM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
> - 'The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0'
>   <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
> This document specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character
> properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode 5.2,
> that changed property values when version 6.0 was released.  The
> consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the
> changes made in Unicode 6.0.
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-5892bis/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-5892bis/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss


-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/