Re: [Idna-update] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5890 (7291)

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

I guess I have to agree this is an appropriate erratum. However, the 
relevant Section 5 of RFC 5890 references RFCs 3454 and 3490/1/2. Also, 
the text of that section, except for the references, is arguably still 
correct ("a separate application level transformation from 
internationalized domain name to DNS domain name and from DNS domain 
name to internationalized domain name"). The references in turn are all 
obsoleted, and an experienced RFC reader will find out about that 
quickly (and an inexperienced reader may get lots of other things wrong 
anyway).

So in my view, there is no need to create a separate RFC just to fix 
this minor problem.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2022-12-27 02:52, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5890,
> "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7291
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: John Klensin <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Request for Comments: 5890
> Obsoletes: 3490
> Category: Standards Track
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Request for Comments: 5890
> Obsoletes: 3490
> Updates: 4343
> Category: Standards Track
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> I have no idea whether this correction is Editorial or Technical , nor what to use as a Section indication.  However...
> 
> RFC 5890 (or IDNA2008 more generally), should have updated RFC 4343 and the IDN discussion in its Section 5.  The latter references the IDNA2003 documents and makes some statements that are, at best, confusing in the context of IDNA2008.
> 
> See the extended notes for RFC 4343 in https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7290 for more discussion and details.
> 
> Recommendation: Hold for document update unless this appears to anyone to be a serious problem, in which case a separate RFC, using the notes on Errata ID 7290 as a starting point, may be in order.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5890 (draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework
> Publication Date    : August 2010
> Author(s)           : J. Klensin
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised)
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update