Dear John: Thank you for attending to my comments. More inline.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:17 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 07:02 -0700 Vijay Gurbani via
Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> - Section 2, last paragraph: "By necessity, the latter ...",
> here, "latter" probably
> refers to "protocol restrictions". However, I am not sure
> whether the rest of the sentence ("...the latter are somewhat
> generic, having to ...") refers to protocol restrictions or
> registry restrictions. It seems to me that the rest of the
> sentence is referring to registry restrictions, in which case,
> s/latter/former/.
Actually not. I've replaced "latter" with "protocol
restrictions" so as to eliminate the confusing reference
entirely.
OK, that works by making the intent more explicit.
What should be clear from the rest of the document
(and, more important, from 5890 - 5894 themselves) is that the
protocol restrictions are the least restrictive and allow the
largest number of code points. Other restrictions and
guidelines are intermediate to registry restrictions and
typically exclude larger numbers of code points and labels (but
cannot allow code points the protocol restrictions disallowed).
And the individual registry restrictions are the most
restrictive of all.
Right, I did get that sense from reading the document, however ...
For a particularly registry, they might
even include a restriction that labels in that particular zone
be words in an authoritative dictionary, a restriction that
would make little sense for many zones. If that isn't clear
after you have carefully reread this I-D and the base IDNA
specifications, please speak up because it would suggest the
IETF has work to do (not necessarily in this I-D).
... since I do not participate in the IDNA work, I am unaware of the associated arcana (code points such CONTEXT{J,O}, MSR-4, etc.) used in the domain. As such, I am evaluating the I-D as a generalist GEN-ART reviewer, and not one steeped in the art of IDNA. From that perspective, many constructs in the I-D escape my appreciation, but I suspect that the review process does guarantee that the IDNA folks get to see the work, and I am convinced that the manuscript makes eminent sense to them.
> - Section 8: s/Faltstrom/Falstrom/
The correct spelling of his name is "Fältström". This
confused me because it appeared that you were asking to drop the
first "t". But there was an error in the reference and your
notation above is apparently merely backwards. Fixed in the
working copy -- thanks.
Great, thanks.
Much appreciate your time, John.
- vijay
