Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03

From: Christopher Wood via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:41:00 -0700

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.

---

From: "Christopher Wood" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:42:58 -0700

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