On Fri 02/Aug/2019 22:30:42 +0200 The IESG wrote:
> Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by
> 2019-08-30.
None of the following comments is substantive, but the wording above doesn't
seem to prevent to send them anyway...
Introduction:
Instead, the algorithm and rules of RFC 5981 and 5982 eliminate many
s/598/589/
BTW, writing RFC NNNN and RFC NNNM instead of RFC NNNN and NNNM would improve
the htmlized version of the paper.
Registry Restrictions in IDNA2008:
somewhat longish:
The most obvious of those
restrictions include provisions for restricting suggested new
registrations based on conflicts with labels already registered in
the zone and specifications of what constitutes such conflicts based
on the properties of the labels in question. The definition of
"conflict" is outside the scope of this document.
possibly clearer(?):
The most obvious of those
restrictions include provisions for restricting suggested new
registrations based on conflicts with labels already registered in
the zone, so as to avoid homograph attacks and other nuisances.
The specifications of what constitutes such conflicts, as well as
the definition of "conflict" based on the properties of the labels
in question, is the responsibility of each registry.
Progressive Subsets of Allowed Characters
They
also interact with recommendations about how labels that appear to
the the same or apparently the same should be handled.
"Apparently appear"? Why not use proper terms (homoglyphs, homophones,
homographs, transliterations)?
s/the the/be the/
Best
Ale
--
