[Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Oct 5 16:43:59 CEST 2009
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Right-to-left scripts for IDNA
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 5-Oct-2009
IETF LC End Date: 14-Oct-2009
IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a proposed
There is one comment I have marked as Major. I presume that the actual
problem is not a defect in the intent of the spec, but a defect in this
readers understanding. Presuming such, I would ask that clarifying text
In section 2, when describing the rules for what is allowed in labels,
CS is allowed in labels. It is not allowed to start RTL labels. This
looks fine, until I realized that CS includes ".", which I am pretty
sure is not allowed in a label.
This gets further complicated in section 3, when talking about "The
Character Trouping requirement", the text talks about "Delimiterchars"
being CS, WS, or ON. A parenthetical then says "They are not allowed in
Since the normative text said that CS is allowed, there seems to be a
Rule 6 in section 2 talks about the requirements on the termination of
an LTR (left-to-right) label. This requirement is much tighter than
just "don't end with an RTL character", since rule 5 already said "don't
use any RTL characters."
However, the non-normative introductory text says roughly that this
document does not put constraints on labels which do not use RTL characters.
My guess, as a person who is neither a DNS expert nor a Unicode expert,
is that rules 6 is not a new rule.
If rule 6 is equivalent to existing rules in other documents, shouldn't
there be an explanation of the fact that it is a restatement of existing
rules? If it is not just a restatement, then how can you get away with
it in this document?
At the end of section 2, there is a reference to LDH-labels. That is
the only occurrence of the string LDH in the document. I presume it is
a typo for something?
More information about the Idna-update