I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-11.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Proposed
Standard but I have a few comments.
Minor
=====
* Section 2.3.1 Page 8
==> "XN-labels are further divided in those whose remaining
characters (after the "xn--") are valid output of the Punycode
algorithm."
... and what else?
==> U-labels are used before their definition
==> Since -- is already implied for R-LDH labels shouldn't this text
"Labels within the class of R-LDH labels that are not prefixed with
"xn--" are also not valid IDNA-labels."
be replaced with
"Labels within the class of R-LDH labels that are not prefixed with
"xn" are also not valid IDNA-labels."
* Section 2.3.2.4
"Equivalence between a U-label and an A-label determined by
translating the U-label form into an A-label form and then testing
for an exact match between the A-labels."
Given that the transformation in the other direction (A-label to U-label
and then compare) is going to give the same result, is there a specific
reason for picking this direction for the transformation? i.e. is
Punycode encoding more efficient than decoding?
* 4.4 Security considerations
Should this section mention issues with visually similar domain names
causing issues with non-matching certificates. If this happens the user
is probably going to get very confused.
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
