Hi James, Sorry I couldn't reply sooner. I have checked the update in -14 and future changes. I agree to remove the sentence in section 5.3.2. This change will make Section 5.3.2 clear. I've also confirmed that the link in section 8 had been corrected to the link Marc suggested. I have also agreed to fix the typo.
I'm concerned about John's comments (I saw them on the Gen-ART archive as well as here), but I'm sure you will reflect my feedback here in the next update for the time being. Regards, Nemo > 2022/07/28 22:19、Gould, James <[email protected]>のメール: > > Takahiro, > > I wanted to follow-up with the feedback that you’ve provided. For the first > minor issue, the proposal for “alternate ASCII address” in the message > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ljIoGJtWaiLv8gw4SsSQVOs0xsM/ ) > is to remove the statements from section 5.3.2 since they are associated with > registrar (client) policy. For your second minor issue, Dimtry made an > update to Section 8 “Security Considerations” in draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-13 > based on your feedback. I do notice a “allow:ed” typo that will be addressed. > > Does this address your feedback, and do you have any additional feedback? > > -- > > JG > > <image001.png> > > James Gould > Fellow Engineer > [email protected] > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > Verisign.com > > From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:49 PM > To: Takahiro Nemoto <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, regext <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Artart last call review of > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12 > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]>, Jody Kolker <[email protected]>, James > Gould <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Resent-Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:49 PM > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
