I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt

["Martin J. Dürst"]

Hello Patrick, Paul, others,

A few minor comments on the draft below.

On 2010/12/14 7:15, by way of Paul Hoffman wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
> 	Title           : The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0
> 	Author(s)       : P. Faltstrom, P. Hoffman
> 	Filename        : draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 4
> 	Date            : 2010-12-13
>
> This document specifies IETF consensus related to and changes made to
> Unicode when version 6.0 was released on Oct 11 2011.  The consensus
> is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the changes made in
> Unicode 6.0.

The first sentence may be misleading. It seems to read "This document 
specifies changes made to Unicode.". Obviously, the IETF doesn't change 
Unicode. I would propose something like:

 >>>>
This document specifies IETF consensus for IDNA derived character 
properties.  The consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based 
on the changes made in Unicode 6.0.
 >>>>

Please note that I also have made clear that this relates to IDNA, have 
eliminated the date of the 6.0 release (which I think is really too tiny 
a detail for the abstract), and have eliminated the double mention of 
Unicode 6.0.

For next time, I'd choose another name for the draft; 5892bis implies 
that this supersedes 5892, but it doesn't even update it (maybe it should?).


1.1:
- "The GeneralCategory changes for this character from So to Lo.  This
    implies the derived property value will change from DISALLOWED to
    PVALID." ->
   "The GeneralCategory for this character changes from So to Lo. This
    implies that the derived property value changes from DISALLOWED to
    PVALID."
   - Moved 'changes' so that it's not easily read as a noun, and so that
     the subject of the sentence stays together with its subordinate
     clause.
   - Added a 'that'.
   - Changed 'will change' to 'changes'. This RFC does that, so present
     is appropriate. (future tense will read strange in the future)

Same changes apply for 1.2 and 1.3.


2. "... every change of The Unicode Standard ..." ->
    "... every change of the Unicode Standard ..."
    (same in other places)


3.1 (IANA):

- It's weird to have just one subsection. The subsection title should go.

- If I were IANA, I'd balk at such a short two-liner. I'd have no idea 
what to do.


4. (Security):

- Remove the "though".

- "that it is important IDNA standard is aligned with" ->
   "that it is important that the IDNA standard is aligned with"

- I'd mention here or in section 1.3 that we concluded that there are 
most probably no U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE in use with IDNA.

- I'd mention here or in sections 1.1/1.2 that allowing these two 
codepoints that were previously invalid will have the same effects as 
allowing newly allocated codepoints (or whatever exactly the effects are).


Regards,   Martin.

> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>
>
> [The following attachment must be fetched by ftp.  Command-click the URL below to ask your ftp client to fetch it.]
> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp