[Justfont] Review of draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-05

[Dale Worley <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Dale Worley
Review result: On the Right Track

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.  The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-05
Reviewer: Dale R. Worley
Review Date: 2016-12-09
IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-09
IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-15

Summary:

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.

Major issue:

Section 5.3.4, Collection Font Type (font/collection)

      Fragment Identifiers  A string, no longer than 63 characters and
         restricted to the printable ASCII subset, codes 33 - 126,
         except for the 10 characters '[', ']', '(', ')', '{', '}',
'<',
         '>', '/', '%'.  If this string matches one of the PostScript
         names (name ID=6) [ISO.14496-22.2015] in the name table, that
         font is selected.  For example, "#Foo-Bold" refers to the
font
         with PostScript name Foo-Bold.  If the name does not match,
or
         if a fragment is not specified, the first font in the
         collection is matched.  Note that the order of fonts in
         collections may change as the font is revised, so relying on
a
         particular font in a collection always being first is unwise.

However, the characters '"', '#', '\', '^', '`', '|' are not
admissible in fragment identifiers, per RFC 3986.

It appears from ISO 14496-22 that those characters are allowed in font
PostScript names, so you probably want to enable the use of %-escapes
in fragment identifiers to represent those six characters.

Minor issue:

>From my correspondence with the author, I think his intention is that
the parameter values should be case-insensitive.  It seems to me that
RFC 6838 section 4.3 makes the values case-sensitive by default, so if
they are intended to be case insensitive, that needs to be specified.

Dale