Re: Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03

["Christopher Wood" <[e-mail]>]

It seems the formatting got lost in translation. The feedback below is probably easier to read here:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03-secdir-lc-wood-2019-09-10/

Sorry for the trouble!

Best,
Chris

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 6:41 PM, Christopher Wood via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Christopher Wood
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> This document looks mostly good to go. I only have a few questions and some
> various editorial nits.
> 
> Questions:
> - Section 4, last paragraph: Will code points "considered unsafe" be labelled
> as such, and if so, where? In the derived property IANA tables? (Assuming those
> tables are kept.) - Section 5, second paragraph: How will the success of this
> document's proposed changes be measured in order to determine if further steps
> towards minimizing confusion are needed?
> 
> Nits:
> - Section 2, first paragraph, first sentence: It seems a comma is missing after
> [RFC3491] reference, i.e., "..., commonly known as "IDNA2003" [RFC3490]
> [RFC3491], ...". - Section 3, second paragraph: s/full Unicode versions/major
> Unicode versions? - Section 3.1: s/also concluded that maintain Unicode/also
> concluded that Unicode? - Section 4, third paragraph: Is the requirement that
> changes which are "documented" redundant with the following "explained"
> requirement? (That is, perhaps just say "... must be documented and explained."
> - Security Considerations, second paragraph: Do "end users" include systems
> that process or interpret Unicode values? If not, it might help to specifically
> call them out, as problems may arise from misinterpretation there.
> 
>