Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Wed Aug 26 06:11:04 CEST 2009


Dear colleagues,

I have read draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14.  Here are my comments.

To begin with, of the documents in the set under current WGLC that I
have so far reviewed, I am most comfortable with this one.  I think
this is really ready, no question.  I have a few tiny --
insignificant, really -- issues, and one biggie that I'll cope with
last.  I think many documents in much worse shape have been published
as RFCs, and I congratulate the editor and the WG on the maturity of
this draft.  Good job, all.  Now, where did I put that red pen?

In §4.1, it says, "By the time a string enters the IDNA registration
process as described in this specification, it is expected to be in
Unicode and MUST be in Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC
[Unicode-UAX15])."  The "expected to be" part is redundant, since we
have a subsequent MUST.

I found this slightly confusing:

   The registry SHOULD permit submission of labels in A-label form and
   is encouraged to accept both the A-label form and the U-label one.
   If it does so,

The "does so" reference there is ambiguous: is it the submission of
A-labels or the A-label+U-label case.  The subsequent text suggests
it's the former.  

This passage from §8 could use a tweak:

            This second-generation version
   would not have been possible without the work that went into that
   first version and its authors, Patrik Faltstrom, Paul Hoffman, and
   Adam Costello.

The sentence first scanned to me as "without the work that went into
(that 1st version) and (its authors…)," which while probably true is
also probably not what was meant!  Perhaps I'm just tired.  I
nevertheless suggest, "This second-generation version would not have
been possible without the work that went into that first version, due
to its authors …"  Or something like that.

As I mentioned in respect of another of the document set, I object
very strongly to the inclusion of the sentence, "As is usual with IETF
specifications, while the document represents rough consensus, it
should not be assumed that all participants and contributors agree
with all provisions."  Rough consensus is always rough on everyone,
but if you are a participant who urges this sentence on the product of
the WG, I ask you to reconsider.  It is unworthy of your effort and
the efforts of your colleagues.  It would be better to have an
outright flamewar on the mailing list than to have that sort of
not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper remark live forever in the WG output.
If we as a WG really have such deep disagreements that we have to send
drafts with this sort of disclaimer to the IESG, I feel pretty
uncomfortable that the WG has in fact reached consensus.

For my part, however, I think this document is in fact in excellent
shape, and that it should be sent on for publication.

Best regards,

A

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


More information about the Idna-update mailing list