IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Takahiro NEMOTO <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp> Thu, 09 June 2022 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp>
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 D93F9C13C2D3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=go-tuat-ac-jp.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YdxMcg0O3ZcX for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21348C15AADC for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id l7-20020a17090aaa8700b001dd1a5b9965so680270pjq.2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=go-tuat-ac-jp.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ygAoXZySN6mY1mtS9hFJciB6lXWyu/6rpMjyxCuFbxc=; b=Jf2+xVSGRDR+xwhLCSOFw9OZuvggBTtBKI6TuWOygffmaOS6NsZwPiGVlx3gBSJvd/ 57rfnP5r9jq6WeGVEKcb41etTOxYejuSjub6UccmZOO3wvNmPPZf3T83bdYV6tgrn0Yo 4u9k5MMPTpAYq6Wt8cq8iXbW9/N37rZQM7d3buacPx5RYx6XcpU2gYbzDGxPlDE62WeC sIodNBJX4eGgzBGfaK9XnJx1Y2N1pGvIA0MdU+ADtAfq8S08NNsn8upx4AWxeREcVe80 8js+jdzjLGYI7NydCdJ86ZBc9AhGdWnS9sUb7dsIbhSQNbkmKNa+CfczyrCgLT/tzmLo otFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ygAoXZySN6mY1mtS9hFJciB6lXWyu/6rpMjyxCuFbxc=; b=fkUn894UCSkgjC3lylEwC8fN0WTHcfuUO6riilLKLmpqGem2OLAIPrUebkm+McRUwm KlLhMi87DQy1vs5RPaLyY5T7hi+kVgqBHziELGAAcUfomTLid95SDyo7C5oUgi4oSDkh 0VpyJ+E6SlVZzT6xUEK1QZ8F4EuSdmTQ1bd/lXG7ZJYnj8Ibg7t/5XQjDPzO6Y79buKO HddMW4+A6WDzhfEhJYPfwSC4fU+Pg/ce4j9RGlDsN2Wx7+Qh4fsPemLyP5erl1ntGOMU CdC5H/faxNSJcyjB1sZn5b31PwJHtUGQDUnb1yFJKSsJqtmlsQj97u3jsHPFL4Qjc9RI MYVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JgByx5VndkX8Ubrtgnu19du6jVBO3PClDYDqlB+7P9D1EJgGB qth2IO8UPkD3BC4qbNgYHi8tiw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxhF5lr2GcCj+//x+kvv7ZHPU9tZk+psGIAxp7b/i5mviAXhKHUd3BmhQdZsOFO/wquA/X2w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b4e:b0:1e8:743a:735c with SMTP id ot14-20020a17090b3b4e00b001e8743a735cmr5654831pjb.189.1654817231901; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([240d:1a:134:700:f47e:7ed0:166a:4796]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ij20-20020a170902ab5400b001676daaf055sm10325210plb.219.2022.06.09.16.27.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Jun 2022 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Takahiro NEMOTO <nemo@go.tuat.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <56F964A0-D5C2-43E8-81A2-0D49B8051501@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:27:08 +0900
Cc: art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DD277FF-65DC-48A9-9C7B-6CC6B2260275@go.tuat.ac.jp>
References: <165480673502.56173.16072247886040677393@ietfa.amsl.com> <56F964A0-D5C2-43E8-81A2-0D49B8051501@viagenie.ca>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/MacGrGLR4TK1gsDEkDeLZzenRUc>
Subject: Re: [regext] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 09 Jun 2022 23:27:17 -0000


> 2022/06/10 5:48、Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>のメール:
> 
>> 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
> 
> Regards, Marc.
> 
Thank you for your quick comment, Mark-san.
I think that link is better too.

Regards, 
Nemo
> 
> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> regext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email