Re: [regext] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12

> Le 9 juin 2022 à 16:32, Takahiro Nemoto via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> a écrit :
> 
> Reviewer: Takahiro Nemoto
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft.
> 
> Summary:
> I think this document is concise and generally good, but a few things are not
> explained well enough. Please consider revising the following points.
> 
> Minor issues:
> - It is unclear how to provide "alternative ASCII addresses" in Section 5.3.2
> and how to distinguish between an EAI address and an alternative ASCII address,
> so it would be better to add an explanation.
> 
> - It is unclear how to verify the code points of domain names in Section 8, so
> it would be better to add an explanation. RFC5892 describes how to determine
> the code points that can be used in IDNA2008 but does not describe how to
> validate domain name code points. So it would be easier to convey the intention
> to the reader to write "validate whether the domain name consists of the code
> points allowed by IDNA2008" rather than just writing "validate all code points
> in the domain name according to IDNA2008". Also, if the validation described in
> this section is intended to be compared to the code points listed in Appendix
> B.1. of RFC 5892, it would be better to refer to IDNA Rules and Derived
> Property Values
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables-12.0.0/idna-tables-12.0.0.xhtml>
> listing the latest IDNA Derived Property Values.
> 

Quick comment: the registry has a base URL which redirects to the latest version. So in an RFC, it would be better to refer to that URL: https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables <https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables>

Regards, Marc.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext