(as individual)
Hi,
This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the
complexity of the material. I support it's publication.
I have a few minor comments:
-- section 3.2, paragraph 6:
Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008?
-- 3.3, implementation note:
Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there
potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a
Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted incorrectly
by some SASL mechanism?
-- 3.3.1, implementation note:
I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational reference
(using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this
document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs with
escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from somewhere
else, doesn't it?
-- 4, para 10 (I think): "In such cases, clients SHOULD enforce..."
The sending client, receiving client, or both? Assuming the former, it
might be worth adding some words to the effect of "before
transmitting..."
-- 8:
While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's
some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119
perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative
text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for
convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but redundant
normative text makes life harder for future updates.)
Thanks!
/Ben.
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
