Last Call Review of draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-04
review-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-04-genart-lc-gurbani-2019-08-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-08-30 | |
| Requested | 2019-08-02 | |
| Authors | Dr. John C. Klensin , Asmus Freytag | |
| I-D last updated | 2019-08-13 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -05
by Paul Wouters
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Vijay K. Gurbani |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/n1c7peE4i0lpM2cYFD-fdpANdRk | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2019-08-13 |
review-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-04-genart-lc-gurbani-2019-08-13-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-?? Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 2019-08-13 IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication as proposed standard, but has a couple of nits as detailed below. Major issues: 0 Minor issues: 0 Nits/editorial comments: 2 - 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/. - Section 8: s/Faltstrom/Falstrom/ Thank you.