comments on protocol

[Andrew Sullivan]

Dear colleagues,

I have read draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-13.  I have some comments.

On the whole, I think the document is in pretty good shape, and these
are mostly the sort of picky comments one might expect as a document
becomes mature.  I do note, however, that there are some areas of the
document that still have substantive questions from the editor.  I
guess we need to get those bits nailed down.

§ 4.2.3.3, anchor11: yes, it should.

§ 4.3: "The string produced by the above steps"  It strikes me that
"above" is possibly ambiguous.  "The steps outlined in Section 4.2"
might be better.

§ 4.4: "more precisely defined elsewhere"  This and similar indications
that a term might be unfamiliar are sprinkled throughout the document.
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing.  I get that it will help
the naive user realise, "Oh, right, I need to go read defs," but it
usually results in an interruption of the prose, which makes the prose
harder to read. 

§5.3: generally, obviously, the change of this section to remove mapping
discussions is right, given the mappings draft.

§5.5: The discussion prior to the bidi test is awkward, and I'm not
sure it belongs here even though I understand why it is.  If it's
necessary to leave the justifying text in (and I don't have a strong
opinion about that), then just put the "should apply the following
test" before the bullet defining the test, and _then_ add the
explanatory material.

It seems to me that all of Appx A should be in the mappings document,
if it is to go anywhere.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.