[precis] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 31 May 2017 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CBA129AD3; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: precis@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-precis-7700bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.52.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149626145570.19916.16628797750334932421@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:10:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/iwQNyFKKKrcEhLU-bKO-B03Y-ow>
Subject: [precis] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:10:56 -0000

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Ready

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

Document: draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2017-05-31
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06

Summary: Ready

Major Concerns: None

Minor Concerns: None


Section 2.3 includes this note:

   Note: An entity SHOULD NOT apply the Case Mapping Rule during
   enforcement, because typically it is appropriate only during

I question the inclusion of "typically" in this note.  Can you simply
say that the Case Mapping Rule SHOULD only be used during comparison?