[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03

Christopher Wood via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 11 September 2019 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AD71200E0; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Christopher Wood via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.101.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
Message-ID: <156816606075.22400.22167404102467671@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:41:00 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/WKjh3DM8tPxd5c4vV4A5mjeHVG4>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:41:01 -0000

Reviewer: Christopher Wood
Review result: Has Nits

This document looks mostly good to go. I only have a few questions and some
various editorial nits.

- Section 4, last paragraph: Will code points "considered unsafe" be labelled
as such, and if so, where? In the derived property IANA tables? (Assuming those
tables are kept.) - Section 5, second paragraph: How will the success of this
document's proposed changes be measured in order to determine if further steps
towards minimizing confusion are needed?

- Section 2, first paragraph, first sentence: It seems a comma is missing after
[RFC3491] reference, i.e., "..., commonly known as "IDNA2003" [RFC3490]
[RFC3491], ...". - Section 3, second paragraph: s/full Unicode versions/major
Unicode versions? - Section 3.1: s/also concluded that maintain Unicode/also
concluded that Unicode? - Section 4, third paragraph: Is the requirement that
changes which are "documented" redundant with the following "explained"
requirement? (That is, perhaps just say "... must be documented and explained."
- Security Considerations, second paragraph: Do "end users" include systems
that process or interpret Unicode values? If not, it might help to specifically
call them out, as problems may arise from misinterpretation there.