Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-06-09
Requested 2022-05-26
Authors Dmitry Belyavsky , James Gould
I-D last updated 2022-06-09
Completed reviews I18ndir Early review of -15 by Yoshiro Yoneya (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -12 by Takahiro Nemoto (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takahiro Nemoto
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-06-09
I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft.

I think this document is concise and generally good, but a few things are not
explained well enough. Please consider revising the following points.

Minor issues:
- It is unclear how to provide "alternative ASCII addresses" in Section 5.3.2
and how to distinguish between an EAI address and an alternative ASCII address,
so it would be better to add an explanation.

- It is unclear how to verify the code points of domain names in Section 8, so
it would be better to add an explanation. RFC5892 describes how to determine
the code points that can be used in IDNA2008 but does not describe how to
validate domain name code points. So it would be easier to convey the intention
to the reader to write "validate whether the domain name consists of the code
points allowed by IDNA2008" rather than just writing "validate all code points
in the domain name according to IDNA2008". Also, if the validation described in
this section is intended to be compared to the code points listed in Appendix
B.1. of RFC 5892, it would be better to refer to IDNA Rules and Derived
Property Values
listing the latest IDNA Derived Property Values.