Re: [regext] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-06

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 05 March 2020 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335063A0B08; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:16:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Y4bAnbZURBOl; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:16:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (mail-io1-f47.google.com [209.85.166.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE70E3A0B0B; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id h8so7913498iob.2; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:16:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rlgd11GYCkoOcpk9xIucXCHFookt+OTJ709bbKfNB+I=; b=A/aMptkN/W4vciApuFlhGZOTygujr82HLN5f4MeRZeidAAQfxn88WvIEu52i1CuuGk o7yXEI+NjD0IyQat1CVPnYfKDpRSzKvAUzi0eIby6oe3JeUVIBCOB3ybCciXGpY79Vob meIQr4IkUEpjLqRt7qNQk0HqpAM72hxadQHL8x9NAwxGMrXeBe9kE5Mf+TqTojFw59+5 +pPxCuMKgFAtzkY7LXSqOZAE+fO9FQGLlf1HZNMAfiLoFFYoD8fa5rwglVwCzErUVQeL 5k+7n0YG4EcaqLe/oNaFzJOuER9nHRF5Ci8iiuf60ZbhJ4jSBVxsgenkqIu1oYpaRQrH 22kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ06UvqW6Oi/qpFgmvVCpbhzmH0JhCW/9ivrCCq4J3nHJ+7zBcM5 NQZJA9g147KdgppnOF/swcIIJuYeHk1LBdIF7MWHNg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vteG8Rr7SE25tlLdm0l64Q/AG9DmIS7W6WM4gGj?= =?utf-8?q?hi9r0TeILWQUOz+/xH65A8ZcGbkLLr1TlhcaiFuKftdBK34=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:ca03:: with SMTP id i3mr256102jak.140.1583439382941; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:16:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158343520135.15044.10991712449156105132@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158343520135.15044.10991712449156105132@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 15:16:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+LZaYLoOVN4PFoPfmi7f=UXNDv8AyZPyne-tnR46H+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Cc: draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping.all@ietf.org, i18ndir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f194fa05a02135ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/6KZiBo7H9iuFaaB3GUzxZslf8b4>
Subject: Re: [regext] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-06
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:16:29 -0000

Thanks for the quick review, Marc.

Barry

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Marc Blanchet via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Marc Blanchet
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I was assigned by the Internationalization Directorate to do a review of
> this
> document with a specific eye on internationalization and also a specific
> request from AD to look at section 10.
>
> I would like to point out that in some cases, the spec seem to provide a
> choice
> for the implementor/deposit provider to use something else than UTF-8 for
> the
> non-ascii encoding. For example, section 4.6.2.1. provides a choice of
> encoding
> for csv files: "encoding  Defines the encoding of the CSV file with the
> default
> encoding of "UTF-8". Moreover, section 10 talks about UTF-8 and UTF-16 and
> recommends UTF-8 instead of making it mandatory. At the same time, there
> are
> multiple fields in this spec that are defined as UTF-8. Therefore, it
> would be
> appropriate and much less prone to interoperability problems to make UTF-8
> the
> only encoding possible, specially given that most protocols, data payloads
> and
> software librairies are using UTF-8 encoding. If the authors agree, then
> section 10 and 4.6.2.1 could be revised, and probably adding a paragraph in
> section 1 or 4 that states the only possible encoding is UTF-8 for both
> CSV and
> XML files.
>
> Section 9.14 schema has a comment on ACE name field. Wonder if A-label
> would be
> more appropriate.
>
> Section 5.6.2.1.1. While in other parts of the spec, the encoding was
> clearly
> identified as UTF-8, the definition of "<rdeCsv:fUName>  Name of the NNDN
> in
> Unicode character set for the <csvNNDN:fAName> field element." does not
> state
> any. Might want to say it clearly as UTF-8 like others.
>
>
>
>