Dear John: Thank you for attending to my comments. More inline. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:17 AM John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> > --On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 07:02 -0700 Vijay Gurbani via > Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > [...] > - Section 2, last paragraph: "By necessity, the latter ...", > > here, "latter" probably > > refers to "protocol restrictions". However, I am not sure > > whether the rest of the sentence ("...the latter are somewhat > > generic, having to ...") refers to protocol restrictions or > > registry restrictions. It seems to me that the rest of the > > sentence is referring to registry restrictions, in which case, > > s/latter/former/. > > Actually not. I've replaced "latter" with "protocol > restrictions" so as to eliminate the confusing reference > entirely. OK, that works by making the intent more explicit. What should be clear from the rest of the document > (and, more important, from 5890 - 5894 themselves) is that the > protocol restrictions are the least restrictive and allow the > largest number of code points. Other restrictions and > guidelines are intermediate to registry restrictions and > typically exclude larger numbers of code points and labels (but > cannot allow code points the protocol restrictions disallowed). > And the individual registry restrictions are the most > restrictive of all. Right, I did get that sense from reading the document, however ... > For a particularly registry, they might > even include a restriction that labels in that particular zone > be words in an authoritative dictionary, a restriction that > would make little sense for many zones. If that isn't clear > after you have carefully reread this I-D and the base IDNA > specifications, please speak up because it would suggest the > IETF has work to do (not necessarily in this I-D). > .... since I do not participate in the IDNA work, I am unaware of the associated arcana (code points such CONTEXT{J,O}, MSR-4, etc.) used in the domain. As such, I am evaluating the I-D as a generalist GEN-ART reviewer, and not one steeped in the art of IDNA. From that perspective, many constructs in the I-D escape my appreciation, but I suspect that the review process does guarantee that the IDNA folks get to see the work, and I am convinced that the manuscript makes eminent sense to them. > > - Section 8: s/Faltstrom/Falstrom/ > The correct spelling of his name is "Fältström". This > confused me because it appeared that you were asking to drop the > first "t". But there was an error in the reference and your > notation above is apparently merely backwards. Fixed in the > working copy -- thanks. > Great, thanks. Much appreciate your time, John. - vijay
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art