In article <156477784250.20958.8001683910411638971.idtracker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: > >The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the >following document: - 'Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): >Registry > Restrictions and Recommendations' > <draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-04.txt> as Proposed Standard This document fills a longstanding need and definitely needs to be published. But I have a few suggestions. Section 4 on "For-Profit Domains" contrasts normal zones which have names that are of use to the zone's owner, and commercial zones where more names mean more money and says (I paraphrase), hey you greedy slobs, don't register junk names. While I certainly agree with the sentiment, in its current form I don't think the intended audience is likely to take the hint. I would shrink the section and just note that zones are managed in different ways and the ones which have a financial or other incentive to maximize the number of names present a potential quality problem. Then say something like that zones and registries have reputations, and zones with poor quality names tend to earn poor reputations, which has led to resolution issues as client systems block them in self-defense. Section 5 refers to draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review which updates RFC 5892. It is also in last call so I'd suggest treating the two drafts as a bundle and replace the paragraph with a reference to the RFC. Section 5.1 updates RFC 5890 section 4.2 to say in part "A 63 octet A-label cannot represent more than 58 Unicode code points ..." which is true, but is easy to miss the point that the UTF-8 version is likely to be a lot more than 58 octets. I'd change it to something like "A 63 octet A-label can represent up to 58 Unicode code points, each of whose UTF-8 encoding can take up to four octets..." R's, John
