Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-04

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 07:02 -0700 Vijay Gurbani via
Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
> Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these
> comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-??
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2019-08-13
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as proposed
> standard, but has a couple of nits as detailed below.
> 
> Major issues: 0
> 
> Minor issues: 0
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: 2
> 
> - Section 2, last paragraph: "By necessity, the latter ...",
> here, "latter" probably
>  refers to "protocol restrictions".  However, I am not sure
> whether the rest of  the sentence ("...the latter are somewhat
> generic, having to ...") refers to  protocol restrictions or
> registry restrictions.  It seems to me that the rest  of the
> sentence is referring to registry restrictions, in which case,
>  s/latter/former/.

Actually not.  I've replaced "latter" with "protocol
restrictions" so as to eliminate the confusing reference
entirely.  What should be clear from the rest of the document
(and, more important, from 5890 - 5894 themselves) is that the
protocol restrictions are the least restrictive and allow the
largest number of code points.  Other restrictions and
guidelines are intermediate to registry restrictions and
typically exclude larger numbers of code points and labels (but
cannot allow code points the protocol restrictions disallowed).
And the individual registry restrictions are the most
restrictive of all.  For a particularly registry, they might
even include a restriction that labels in that particular zone
be words in an authoritative dictionary, a restriction that
would make little sense for many zones.  If that isn't clear
after you have carefully reread this I-D and the base IDNA
specifications, please speak up because it would suggest the
IETF has work to do (not necessarily in this I-D).

> - Section 8: s/Faltstrom/Falstrom/

The correct spelling of his name is "Fältström".  This
confused me because it appeared that you were asking to drop the
first "t".   But there was an error in the reference and your
notation above is apparently merely backwards.  Fixed in the
working copy -- thanks.

thanks,
   john