[netmod] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16
Bron Gondwana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 29 September 2024 16:27 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.8.155] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE1EC14F61E; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bron Gondwana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172762727635.431226.8440698767996901523@dt-datatracker-7bbd96684-zjf54>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 09:27:56 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: NQWMVOYDC4SE6V6Z7TAKFFSC7Z2ZAKSY
X-Message-ID-Hash: NQWMVOYDC4SE6V6Z7TAKFFSC7Z2ZAKSY
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netmod.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Subject: [netmod] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xeeMbfx-eJC0wF4zgQunJ7ezo-g>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netmod-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netmod-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netmod-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Bron Gondwana Review result: Not Ready I'm the designated ARTART reviewer for this document. It's generally well written and clear; I didn't see any issues with the document itself, however there are some obsolete references and changes to align with work done elsewhere in the IETF which I believe would improve the overall cross-compatibility of IETF specifications significantly, hence my marking it as "NOT READY". *Date-Time:* While the date-time format duplicates the description found in RFC 6021 and later RFC 6991, the construct -00:00 has been identified as being incompatible with the latest ISO8601 by the work in the SEDATE working group. I would refer you to section 2 of RFC 9557 for the full description and update of RFC 3339 which was done there. I suggest that this document should be updated to align with (and reference) RFC 9557 and deprecate the usage of -00:00; instead using "Z" to mean "local time reference point is unknown" as is common practice. This will improve future interoperability with ISO8601. Likewise the same issue occurs with the new "date" format and "time" format. *Email Address:* The email-address construct in this document is limited to 7-bit. RFC 6531 and RFC 6532 have extended Email Address to allow UTF-8 characters. There's a good analysis of the changes at: https://gist.github.com/baker-ling/3b4b014ee809aa9732f9873fe060c098 Since this is a new datatype being added, it should support all legal email addresses as defined in current IETF RFCs; so be extended for 8 bit local-parts. Similarly, the domain part of the address should explicitly mention A-labels for Internationalized domain names, as the "domain-name" construct does.
- [netmod] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ne… Bron Gondwana via Datatracker
- [netmod] Re: Artart last call review of draft-iet… Jürgen Schönwälder
- [netmod] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Artart last call rev… Bron Gondwana