my comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14 (second part)
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Wed Sep 2 00:08:00 CEST 2009
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 15:30 +0900 "\"Martin J.
Dürst\"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> (second part of my comments)
> Section 5:
> para 2: " The two steps described in Section 5.2 are
> required.": Superfluous. Make sure there's a MUST at the
> right place in that section. (Looking at 5.2, I have no clue
> what the two steps should be.
Unless the WG disagrees, I recommend deferring the fairly
significant rewrites you are proposing for a Draft Standard pass
on these documents. Others seem to believe that they are ok as
is. While I like most of the subset of your proposed changes
that I've looked at carefully in conjunction with the document,
I fear that making changes this extensive at this late date
would cause significant risk of introducing errors or unexpected
side effects, so it is difficult for me to recommend making them
at this stage.
Certainly such changes would require a second WG Last Call after
new documents were produced and probably yet another set of
documents after that before IETF Last Call.
Again, if others disagree, I'll start rewriting, but I haven't
seen any strong support for extensive editorial changes of this
More information about the Idna-update