Review of draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14

[Paul Hoffman]

At 3:42 AM -0400 8/29/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Friday, August 21, 2009 19:52 -0700 Paul Hoffman
><phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
>
>> Section 3.2.1 says:
>>    IDNA applies only to domain names in the NAME and RDATA
>> fields of DNS    resource records whose CLASS is IN.
>> It would be good for the DNS-centric folks in the WG to verify
>> that they think that this restriction is correct. Are there
>> really no other fields where domain labels would appear?
>
>I have received no further input on this and will assume that
>the current text is ok unless I do.

Andrew's response is good enough for me, unless some other DNS-centric commenter disagrees with him.

> > Section 5.4 assumes that an application knows the version of
>> Unicode that is being used in the application. We should state
>> that assumption in 5.4 or maybe further up near the beginning
>> of section 5.
>
>It assumes that either the application or the operating system
>or library support keeps the two consistent.  That range of
>options is the reason why Section 5.4 is not more explicit about
>which particular software elements or modules know what.  If
>this is to be changed, I need suggestions about textual fixes
>that do not imply that the knowledge must be in the application
>itself.

The first bullet in 5.4 is the first time that "version of Unicode" is mentioned, so the note is probably most effective right there. I propose adding:
   This requirement means that the application must use
   a list of unassigned characters that is matched to
   the version of Unicode that is being used for the
   other requirements in this section. It is not
   required that the application know which version of
   Unicode is being used; that information might be part
   of the operating environment in which the application
   is running.

> > The paragraph in section 5.4 that starts "This test may..." is
>> out of date because the rules in the Bidi document no longer
>> do inter-label checking. The whole paragraph can be removed.
>>
>> In the light of this, does the WG want to change the
>> requirement level for checking Bidi on lookup from SHOULD to
>> MUST? Given the above, I see no reason why not.
>
>I need WG input or instructions from the Chair on both of the
>suggestions above.

New thread started.