It seems the formatting got lost in translation. The feedback below is probably easier to read here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03-secdir-lc-wood-2019-09-10/ Sorry for the trouble! Best, Chris On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 6:41 PM, Christopher Wood via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Christopher Wood > Review result: Has Nits > > This document looks mostly good to go. I only have a few questions and some > various editorial nits. > > Questions: > - Section 4, last paragraph: Will code points "considered unsafe" be labelled > as such, and if so, where? In the derived property IANA tables? (Assuming those > tables are kept.) - Section 5, second paragraph: How will the success of this > document's proposed changes be measured in order to determine if further steps > towards minimizing confusion are needed? > > Nits: > - Section 2, first paragraph, first sentence: It seems a comma is missing after > [RFC3491] reference, i.e., "..., commonly known as "IDNA2003" [RFC3490] > [RFC3491], ...". - Section 3, second paragraph: s/full Unicode versions/major > Unicode versions? - Section 3.1: s/also concluded that maintain Unicode/also > concluded that Unicode? - Section 4, third paragraph: Is the requirement that > changes which are "documented" redundant with the following "explained" > requirement? (That is, perhaps just say "... must be documented and explained." > - Security Considerations, second paragraph: Do "end users" include systems > that process or interpret Unicode values? If not, it might help to specifically > call them out, as problems may arise from misinterpretation there. > >
