I am adding the document shepherd as a cc to this reply.
I corrected the "using using" nit in my copy, as the correction is both
obvious and of no consequence other than editorial correctness.
I have a question about the other nit.
The applicability statement, in both form and location, is almost
identical to a similar statement for i;ascii-casemap in RFC 4790 section
9.2.1. The purpose of this document is to add a collation to the IANA
Collation registry (described in RFC 4970 section 7), which is currently
populated with the three registrations in RFC 4970 section 9.
Given that this document seeks to correspond in form with the other three
registrations in RFC 4970 section 9, is it still a good idea to make the
change that you suggest?
Please note that I am neutral on the question. On the one hand, there is
the precedent of RFC 4970 section 9. On the other hand, the reasoning
that you offer is valid. I find myself unable to take a position for
either of these two (seemingly both excellent and compelling) choices.
I will therefore pass the buck to the AD and/or document shepherd for a
decision, with the caveat that "no instructions received" will be
interpreted by me as "make no change".
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Christian Vogt wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-crispin-collation-unicasemap-06
Reviewer: Christian Vogt
Review Date: August 21, 2007
IESG Telechat date: August 23, 2007
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed
before publication.
Comments:
The document describes the collation algorithm for the Unicode casemap
in section 1. This section ends with an applicability statement for the
algorithm. It says that, while the algorithm is well-suited for
technical languages, it does not work correctly in certain cases when
applied to natural language.
My suggestion is to move the applicability statement to a more prominent
place, perhaps into a new section preceding current section 1.
Moreover, I had previously reviewed version 04 of the document, and
those comments have been addressed appropriately in the meantime. This
earlier review is available here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg02027.html
Finally, 3rd paragraph of section 1: s/using using/using/
Kind regards,
- Christian
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
