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

[Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>]

Dear John: Thank you for attending to my comments.  More inline.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:17 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

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

> - 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.


OK, that works by making the intent more explicit.

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.


Right, I did get that sense from reading the document, however ...


> 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).
>

... since I do not participate in the IDNA work, I am unaware of the
associated arcana (code points such CONTEXT{J,O}, MSR-4, etc.) used in the
domain.  As such, I am evaluating the I-D as a generalist GEN-ART reviewer,
and not one steeped in the art of IDNA.  From that perspective, many
constructs in the I-D escape my appreciation, but I suspect that the review
process does guarantee that the IDNA folks get to see the work, and I am
convinced that the manuscript makes eminent sense to them.


> > - 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.
>

Great, thanks.

Much appreciate your time, John.

- vijay