Some small comments below: At 07:00 06/08/16, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >Spencer Dawkins writes: >>> I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification >>> (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >> >> This is a re-review, my previous review was for 06, with Scott as >> shepherding AD, before IETF 65. I'm reading the deltas from 06 (in the >> spirit of not finding new problems with previously-reviewed text). >> >> Summary: Again, nearly ready for publication as Proposed Standard, with some >> (new) items that do need to be addressed before publication. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer >> >> Review Comments: >> >> 2.2. Purpose >> >> Collations abstraction layer for comparison functions so that these >> comparison functions can be used in multiple protocols. >> >> I am just barely able to parse this sentence so that it's not a sentence >> fragment. I think the problem is that "functions" is being used as a verb >> and as a noun in the same sentence. I saw later in the document that you had >> changed "function"-the-noun to "operation", so should be easy to fix. But >> this isn't an editorial comment, because I'm not sure what the sentence is >> saying. > >It is saying "Arnt cannot search and replace". > > Collations provide a multi-protocol abstraction layer for comparison > functions so that these > comparison functions can be used in multiple protocols. > >(Maybe strike "layer". Not sure yet. Must look at it when I'm 100% awake.)
I'd leave in layer, but take out the first "multi-protocol", to give "Collations provide an abstraction layer for comparison functions so that these comparison functions can be used in multiple protocols." >> 4.2.2. Equality >> ... >> In this specification, the return values of the equality test are >> called "match", "no-match" and "undefined". This is not a >> specification, merely a choice of phrasing. >> >> What does the last sentence mean? (Brian Carpenter asked me, so he doesn't >> know, either). > >It means: I'm not defining what these three return values are called, only >naming them so I can talk about them. If you implement this, you're free to >call them anything you want. You can use a C++ enum type, or -1/0/1, or >whatever. > >This rather awkward phrasing is a result of conflicting reviewer requests. > >I could say ォThe return values of the equality test are called "match", >"no-match" and "undefined" in this document.サ Would that be clear enough? That would also be fine by me. >> 9.1.1. ASCII Numeric Collation Description >> >> The "i;ascii-numeric" collation is a simple collation intended for >> use with arbitrary sized unsigned decimal integer numbers stored as >> octet strings. US-ASCII digits (0x30 to 0x39) represent digits of >> the numbers. Before converting from string to integer, the input >> string is truncated at the first non-digit character. All input is >> valid; strings which do not start with a digit represent positive >> infinity. >> >> Is it obvious to everyone except me that leading zeros are ignored? The >> examples giving a little further down say so - is making this point in >> examples normative enough? > >It's specified in 2244, so I don't think it's very important. This document >merely registers a collation which has been specified for a decade and >implemented in many products. I didn't know that. If that's the case, we should provide a reference. (we have RFC 2244 in the list of references, but no pointer to it from 9.1, and we might want to make RFC 2244 normative). Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
