Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Has Nits Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document describes changes between Unicode 6.2.0 and 12.0.0 in the context of IDNA2008. The document is generally well-written, and is Ready for publication subject to a small number of comments and nits, detailed below. being reviewed. Note that I am not an expert in Unicode or IDNA2008. General comments: The draft discusses changes up to Unicode 12.0.0, but I see that Unicode 14.0.0 was recently published; should the changes made in those past 2 years be included in this document? Are they major, or minor, to readily allow this? The draft talks about exceptions, but never explicitly says what an exception is, to what, and what it would look like and where it would be documented. It would be useful for a non-expert reader to clarify this. The draft includes several Appendix sections, but these are not mentioned in the document. I think the context of their inclusion should be given. There are several sections which summarise the number of changes to characters between specific versions. It would be useful to include a reference to these totals, where they are sourced from. I found some summary numbers at https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/HowMany.html, and I checked that the “Assigned” totals there matched the totals for “PVALID + CONTEXTO/J and DISALLOWED”, and these were correct against that source. But I don’t know where to check the CONTEXTO/J numbers; perhaps these 27 (2+25) items should be listed in an appendix, or a specific reference given. Comments: In section 1, CONTEXT is explained, but the later use of CONTEXTJ and CONTEXTO are not. This would be useful to include. Section 2, penultimate para, s the first use, unexplained, of CONTEXTO/J. In Section 2, last para, maybe point forward to the security section regarding the reason for conservatism? In Section 3.1, changes from 6.2.0 to 7.0.0 are summarised, but in the Appendix the difference listed is 6.3.0 to 7.0.0. Is that intended? Section 5, paragraph 2 it talks of future Unicode versions that might need action, but given 14.0.0 is published now, can we say more than “might” here? Or do we publish this as a snapshot against 12.0.0 from two years ago? I guess this document’s origins were at the time of publication of 12.0.0. Section 6 - cite the registry? Nits: Abstract: “consisstent” -> “consistent” Section 1: Third to last para - “and IETF” -> “and the IETF” Section 4, line 5, there’s an orphaned “(BackwardCompatible(G))”. Section 5, “after review” -> “after the review” and “tuning. Like” -> “tuning, like” Section 7 - “do not” -> “does not” Best wishes, Tim -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
