Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-faltstrom-unicode12-03
Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Tue, 07 December 2021 11:28 UTC
Return-Path: <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211903A0659; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 03:28:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TiRF8e6EGmih; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 03:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am5eur02on0621.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe07::621]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0CAA3A074B; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 03:28:26 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=E1hu3Wi/X6Ip6bmEbE4OMDxF+olidMFmb8E0hbIu5fgExxUNpkRf5faXrAoHtusuQoiN9T3+1ovkOJfZP2d2Sk3QAN2S1PemarWBlMBEqIdqEamT7mMiV9UlU9YeJ2roaHf8GajwaziuT65t6P4TuGPlo5XA3HAed5zS/JH8pLljXgecdYlMDFidtB4RZ4JkENEx0aaFH3vnAK43aryW+lbqglacRGC4D4bOoeL86BnuKfxcTNoS6tzr5GDcERia09Cpm90SiKhlw8pltTCWFtbwNZOYR2FhjxRK4u27pyMilGdL+QmWDBwIst1k/4ZqE8YUop3P4mGEb9KaCxI0pA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=CcyJCkUb5pbp4gOKXAkgRtbYVP+SWOLES5pKnU3DlYk=; b=c4FzeaW0sOmbgcGujsSGSNlELAfpDV+hzD6Xg91mi3YRMEMJmdmAXMrxCwjKguQGzqVFt+W1fpXMeoJGad9ENp4K3nVxZrd3nMZFYhH3WGx1qw18Cy6gxrB1sYC5C8elI3SbY5Wr8ORLn2dMx7vFLxVRbjGC7vQ5nckdSL6Qo1HuOU7cBdR1psyvJfkE1BKtzA08Nr/Sm/BDw+uHbqfuO5M+ikIYoT8D2dsGMVwfTnxZs5ogUwKEUztUT+uBZUM0eJ0JSc+TJuE7CWunlQ453Sme1x9jaKFhVbFM4AqU8XXyVLNB7w4pCg9vPHM7KiiBzpZWAV1wy3dJmSo5G6sU5w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jisc.ac.uk; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=jisc.ac.uk; dkim=pass header.d=jisc.ac.uk; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CcyJCkUb5pbp4gOKXAkgRtbYVP+SWOLES5pKnU3DlYk=; b=Yp9/atgmkm625R7koqABlVtc/uAyLy0aciiW0ihDSVXBenlgfxWwKusrx8pBmB3BZcESRM4azj+mmOZYOQPcLYyPaFKaF7Hwpj4hQZgYOpixzN9pCUHsFfndWCf/Q1g82G3mQLj472aOC8uiEGE6Z7QYC70YPOFZsbziHX2/4Yc=
Received: from DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:2a6::15) by DB7PR07MB3913.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:5:e::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4778.11; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:28:07 +0000
Received: from DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3ce3:3d05:32f7:9a80]) by DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3ce3:3d05:32f7:9a80%4]) with mapi id 15.20.4778.010; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:28:07 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
CC: Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-faltstrom-unicode12.all@ietf.org" <draft-faltstrom-unicode12.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-faltstrom-unicode12-03
Thread-Index: AQHX5F8+c1WAf4zCM06kriO3HhacwKwdop2AgAMS7QCAAEWCgIAF9zcA
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:28:07 +0000
Message-ID: <6E583794-BF95-41A8-9E5A-2DA4C64CFE07@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <163706990624.30769.12126500225936881945@ietfa.amsl.com> <F07B9BE1-3B47-4A47-9BC2-42E2BE7271A1@frobbit.se> <BBDFFBF7-A047-444D-A028-2CC6EC2D3C54@jisc.ac.uk> <A41A201A-750D-4DB3-8F88-212D75414CDB@frobbit.se> <683534CBF76AE13E0B9CADC7@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <683534CBF76AE13E0B9CADC7@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.20.0.1.32)
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=jisc.ac.uk;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 437e6d15-1121-4d93-0e03-08d9b974a489
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB3913:EE_
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB39134F9C1B5C599BCBFA5E7DD66E9@DB7PR07MB3913.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(38070700005)(76116006)(786003)(91956017)(38100700002)(122000001)(33656002)(316002)(54906003)(36756003)(83380400001)(186003)(5660300002)(8936002)(8676002)(71200400001)(6486002)(6512007)(86362001)(53546011)(66476007)(2616005)(66946007)(66556008)(66574015)(6506007)(6916009)(508600001)(2906002)(4326008)(66446008)(64756008)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E9DBB2553EC0B8488AFD8EAC23548EE3@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 437e6d15-1121-4d93-0e03-08d9b974a489
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Dec 2021 11:28:07.6838 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: u4ordagBfpsECSWkbWuLsADD/JSFZnN11LiQ70T134NkeL1kroCUQzKaT0jhpc7SjorZm54WfvBH9mDT4OC7rA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB3913
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/k6J6yxXvhSC6597ZaELtYCepKr0>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-faltstrom-unicode12-03
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:28:31 -0000
Thanks John, Your observations are also in my view very good and I would not object to any of what you propose for added clarity. But the emphasis should indeed be on shipping this. Tim > On 3 Dec 2021, at 16:21, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > (Most of the comments in this note are likely to be of specific > interest to Patrik, Tim, and those deeply involved with IDNA. > Other busy people, probably including the IESG, might want to > just skip to the two paragraphs at the end and then treat the > rest of the text as examples they may or may not want to study. > > --On Friday, December 3, 2021 13:13 +0100 Patrik Fältström > <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> ... >>> I just find it surprising to see completely unreferenced >>> Appendices in the document. Why are they there if not >>> referenced somewhere? Some of them do not match to the >>> changes discussed in section 3. >> >> Hmm....I added this to the section titled "Notable Changes >> Between Unicode 6.0.0 and 12.0.0": >> >> Among the changes between the Unicode versions, most >> code points that change derived property value change >> from UNASSIGNED to PVALID or from UNASSIGNED to >> DISALLOWED. The interesting changes in derived >> property values include other changes. All changes >> between the major versions of Unicode can be found in >> <xref target="Appendix-6.0.0"/>, <xref >> target="Appendix-7.0.0"/>, <xref target="Appendix-8.0.0"/>, >> <xref target="Appendix-9.0.0"/>, <xref >> target="Appendix-10.0.0"/> and <xref >> target="Appendix-11.0.0"/>. > > Patrik, > > Since this fine-tuning effort (which I appreciate) to make > things crystal-clear, I suggest replacing "interesting" with > "significant" or "important". "Interesting" in your sentence > just has too many possible implications. For the same > purpose, what might be even better would be to rephrase, so > > NEW (from your note): > The interesting changes in derived property values > include other changes. > > NEWER (suggested): > Changes in derived property values other than those > transitions are normally the only ones of significance > to IDNA users and applications. > > That is a quick thought. I think it can be improved further, > but hope we can all trust the RPC to work it out. > > Also... > >>>> All changes are listed in the Appendices. >>> >>> I don't see where the 2+25 figures are taken from. >> >> Unicode 6.0.0 already have code points with various derived >> property values. > > Does this refer to the text of Unicode 6.0.0 or is it actually > about RFC 6452? If the latter, perhaps "RFC 6452 has already > identified code points with various derived property values". > If it is really about Unicode 6.0.0, I don't quite understand > the point because _every_ version of Unicode has "Derived > Properties" [1]. If it does not affect the text of the > document, maybe we don't care other that for the edification of > Tim and others as we move forward (see comment at end). > >> In the list of "changes from 6.0.0 to 7.0.0" >> I have written "CONTEXTJ did not change, at 2". To me this is >> crystal clear the number of code points with the derived >> property value CONTEXTJ is 2 in Unicode 7.0.0 as it was in >> Unicode 6.0.0. That it is 2 can be found in earlier RFCs or in >> the IANA registry. > > You might be able to make that a bit more clear by saying > something like "There were no changes to the number of code > points assigned to CONTEXTJ; the number remains at 2" or words > to that general effect (again see comment at end). > >> ... >>>>> Comments: >>>>> >>>>> In section 1, CONTEXT is explained, but the later use of >>>>> CONTEXTJ and CONTEXTO are not. This would be useful to >>>>> include. >>>> >>>> See section 1 of RFC 5892. I will add a clarification as >>>> follows: >>>> >>>> As explained in <xref target="RFC5892">RFC >>>> 5892</xref> CONTEXT is in turn divided into CONTEXTJ and >>>> CONTEXTO. >>> >>> Thanks. > > If there is still any remaining confusion (and maybe even if > there is not), perhaps a reference to Section 3.1 of RFC 5894 > would be helpful. It seems to me that part of Tim's confusion > (and likely confusion by readers who, like him, are not > thoroughly familiar with IDNA2008) is that RFC 5892 talks about > those contextual rules and how and why they are assigned to code > points but not about what they are for, why there are two types > and how they differ in practice, and so on. Some of that > material is in RFC 5891 ("the Protocol Document") to which the > category definitions of RFC 5892 explicitly points, but the more > or less plain English, quasi-tutorial, explanation is in RFC > 5894. And see comment at end. > >>>>> Section 2, penultimate para, s the first use, unexplained, >>>>> of CONTEXTO/J. >>>> >>>> Changed to: >>>> >>>> The IDNA2008 rules use the Unicode Standard to >>>> create a further subset of code points and context that are >>>> permitted in DNS labels associated with its PVALID, and >>>> CONTEXT (CONTEXTJ or CONTEXTO) derived property values. DNS >>>> registries and other organizations that deal with IDNs are >>>> supposed to create their own subsets from IDNA2008 for use >>>> by those registries and organizations. >>> >>> Thanks. > > While these are improvements, I am concerned about the path this > is going down, especially because I expect this document to set > precedents for its successors. A paragraph like the above, > while helpful, is basically a reprise of text that already > appear in RFCs 5890, 5894, 8753, and 5892 itself. That strikes > me as unwise: it turns this document into more of a tutorial > than it should be, creates risks of having to update it (or > having it further confuse readers) if IDNA2008 definitions are > ever upgraded, and makes it harder for someone who is thoroughly > familiar with IDNA2008 and its applications, and why this type > of document is needed at all, to find information that is > relevant to them and their needs. > > Similar comments apply to the explanation of why conservatism is > important even though a one-sentence cross-reference is, at > worst, harmless. > > See comment at end. > >>>>> In Section 2, last para, maybe point forward to the >>>>> security section regarding the reason for conservatism? >>>> >>>> Added paragraph at the end: >>>> >>>> See also the Security Considerations section in this >>>> document. >>> >>> Thanks. > > See above. > >> ... > > While each of these changes makes the I-D better when it is > viewed as an isolated document, I fear that we may be going down > the wrong path. As I think the Introduction makes fairly clear, > this document is part of the IDNA2008 collection and is only > marginally comprehensible without an understanding of the base > documents (RFCs 5890-5894). Every bit of tutorial explanation > that is added here is a step toward encouraging people to > believe that they can read this document and understand what it, > and the tables and their application, are about without > understanding IDNA2008. Many of the issues Tim has caught in > his obviously careful reading are very real. The fixes are > significant and important -- Patrik has already thanked him and > so do I, but the community owes him thanks more generally. But > others, and Patrik's response to them, seem to be straying in > the direction of tutorial information that already appears in > the base IDNA2008 documents or in RFC 8753. I think we should > be very cautious about that both because of the "belief" issue > above and because I (and I think everyone else who has commented > recently) would prefer to get this document out than to have to > carefully check these tutorial explanations for complete > consistency with the IDNA2008 base, down to reviewing the impact > of even slight differences in terminology and picking the last > nit. > > So, again in the interest of being done with this and letting > those involved move on to other work (including thinking about > how to get the Unicode 13.x and 14.x reviews moving forward), I > suggest that we do not try to un-do any of the changes that have > been made already, fixing them when needed. If the fixes to > tutorial explanations involve significant work and/or thought, > removing those paragraphs should be considered as an > alternative, but I haven't seen any cases of that (my > suggestions about the changes above notwithstanding). In > retrospect, I wonder whether Section 3.2 (or most of it) even > belongs here -- that material mostly is a repetition and > clarification of material already in the base documents. Where > it is not, we might have been better off with a separate > document that explicitly updates part of the core. However, I > don't think that is worth changing the I-D, or even debating the > point, now. I make one suggestion to clarify the situation: > Add a sentence in the Introduction that clearly conveys the > principle that this document is a supplement to the core > IDNA2008 specs and that anyone who tries to read it without a > solid understanding of those specs is going to be in Big Trouble > and might be led into error (I trust Patrik can come up with a > less inappropriate phrasing while making the point). But let's > not try to add more tutorial materials or keep trying to > fine-tune: let's get the document out and move on. > > Thanks, > john > > > [1] See TUS version 13.0, Section 3.5, definition D46. >
- [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-falt… Tim Chown via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… John C Klensin
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Tim Chown
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… John C Klensin
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Tim Chown
- Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-… Tim Chown