[Idna-update] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5890 (5484)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 30 December 2022 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049ABC14CEE1 for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:53:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZJF2E5yMfWQS for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.alvestrand.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c010:a44b::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21842C14F747 for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by smtp.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id 852D6449A0; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:53:11 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: idna-update@alvestrand.no
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=50.223.129.200; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) by smtp.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595624499F for <idna-update@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:53:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 375AD5669D; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:53:08 -0800 (PST)
To: poccil14@gmail.com, john+ietf@jck.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: superuser@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, idna-update@alvestrand.no
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221230225308.375AD5669D@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:53:08 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/QYARKDiteUX0byQ2K2LENGWfJrM>
Subject: [Idna-update] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5890 (5484)
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 22:53:17 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
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/eid5484

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2018-08-28
Held by: Murray Kucherawy (IESG)

Section: 2.3.2.1

Original Text
-------------
   For IDNA-aware applications, the three types of valid labels are
   "A-labels", "U-labels", and "NR-LDH labels", each of which is defined
   below.


Corrected Text
--------------
   For IDNA-aware applications, the three types of valid labels are
   "A-labels", "U-labels", and "NR-LDH labels", each of which is defined
   below and in section 2.3.1.

Notes
-----
The term NR-LDH label is actually defined in section 2.3.1, not later in this section.

AD note: In reality, at least from the author's perspective, "NR-LDH
label" is defined in the section of that name, i.e., 2.3.2.2,
which is "below" 2.3.2.1.  Whether 2.3.1 also "defines" it or
supplements that definition (or if 2.3.2.1 supplements what
2.3.1 has to say) is a matter for debate, but it is clear that
the text cited would benefit from a reference to 2.3.1.

--------------------------------------
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