Re: [I18nrp] editorial comments on draft-faltstrom-unicode11-04.txt

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, will take care of these editorial issues...

   Patrik

> On 10 Oct 2018, at 21:12, Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I looked at rev04 and have some editorial comments and nits. One such general comment is that there is a lack of commas in the text, which makes for difficult reading.
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> s/IDNA2008 do give/IDNA2008 gives/
> s/document suggests/document suggest/
> 
> Introduction:
> 
> Points out that IDNA2008 "is specified in a series of documents (see Section Section 3.1). " That still leaves unanswered what a reasonable overview is for those of us who are absolute IDNA newbs. So may I suggest something like "is specified in a series of documents (see Section Section 3.1), but for an overview see XXXX." [I suppose rfc5894 is the proper overview doc here?]
> 
> Section 3.1:
> 
> s/DISSALOWED/DISALLOWED/
> s/changes where acceptable/changes were acceptable/
> 
> Section 3.2:
> 
> s/implies stayed at Unicode Standard/implies staying at Unicode Standard/ 
> [Here, I suppose it's staying, but "stayed" sounds wrong, please double-check.]
> 
> s/having a very diverse/having very diverse/
> 
> Can't parse: "that registry operators to based on the IDNA2008 specification create additional rules...". 
> Perhaps you meant "that led registry operators to (based on the IDNA2008 specification) create additional rules..."?
> 
> s/characters permissable/characters permissible / 
> 
> section 4.3:
> 
> s/ZANABZAR/ZANABAZAR
> 
> 
> Gabriel
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IAB <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
>> Sent: 6 October, 2018 22:54
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: [IAB] draft-faltstrom-unicode11-04.txt
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Version -04 of this draft was just posted.
>> 
>> Background: As we all know IDNA2008 is an algorithm that applied to Unicode
>> gives a subset of code points which are permissible for in turn registries and
>> others to create subsets from to be used in their respective policies.
>> 
>> Being the appointed expert for the IANA registry I have flagged for IAB changes
>> made to Unicode that I feel must be discussed in IETF, and here is the
>> document with my proposal (details are in the draft).
>> 
>> In short the draft proposes (just like RFC 6452) IETF continue to follow Unicode
>> Standard without adding exceptions to the IDNA2008 algorithm, EVEN IF
>> changes are made that are incompatible to earlier versions of Unicode.
>> 
>> The choices for IETF when things like this happens are:
>> 
>> 1. Keep IDNA2008 with no exceptions
>> 
>> 2. Keep IDNA2008 with exceptions
>> 
>> 3. Stop referring (directly) to Unicode as it is not stable enough
>> 
>> Probably more choices than these...
>> 
>> My proposal is [1], together with a more forceful push to strict IDNA2008
>> adoption. No IDNA2003, no UTS#46, no homebrew mixes. Including that
>> registries really do a careful conservative selection of code points to be used in
>> whatever context it is to be used.
>> 
>> 
>> The problem though is that this is *my* view. Sure, a few others have
>> randomly and "by pure luck" told me "this is ok".
>> 
>> But is this a stable informed decision by IETF?
>> 
>> This very fast turn into a process issue where IAB have asked for progress, and
>> IETF is to deliver.
>> 
>> And this is where I take a step back, and want IESG and IAB to make up their
>> mind. This group was created for I18N issues, we have a charter, but then
>> what? Is this where drafts like these should be discussed?
>> 
>> Maybe...
>> 
>>   Patrik