Dear Takahiro, Many thanks for your review!
I will update the draft in the middle of the next week according to your guidelines (with Marc's amendment) On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:32 PM Takahiro Nemoto via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Takahiro Nemoto > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. > > Summary: > I think this document is concise and generally good, but a few things are > not > explained well enough. Please consider revising the following points. > > Minor issues: > - It is unclear how to provide "alternative ASCII addresses" in Section > 5.3.2 > and how to distinguish between an EAI address and an alternative ASCII > address, > so it would be better to add an explanation. > > - It is unclear how to verify the code points of domain names in Section > 8, so > it would be better to add an explanation. RFC5892 describes how to > determine > the code points that can be used in IDNA2008 but does not describe how to > validate domain name code points. So it would be easier to convey the > intention > to the reader to write "validate whether the domain name consists of the > code > points allowed by IDNA2008" rather than just writing "validate all code > points > in the domain name according to IDNA2008". Also, if the validation > described in > this section is intended to be compared to the code points listed in > Appendix > B.1. of RFC 5892, it would be better to refer to IDNA Rules and Derived > Property Values > < > https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables-12.0.0/idna-tables-12.0.0.xhtml > > > listing the latest IDNA Derived Property Values. > > > -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
