> -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 12:40 PM > To: a...@arin.net; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; > b...@nostrum.com; aamelni...@fastmail.fm; a...@nostrum.com; > o...@nlnetlabs.nl; superu...@gmail.com > Cc: john-i...@jck.com; wei...@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7482 (5621) > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7482, "Registration > Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5621 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: John Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> > > Section: 2.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > IDN: Internationalized Domain Name > > IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, a protocol > for the handling of IDNs. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > IDN: Internationalized Domain Name, a [fully-qualified] domain name > containing one or more labels that are intended to include one or more > Unicode code points outside the ASCII range (cf. "domain name", "fully- > qualified domain name" and "internationalized domain name" in RFC 8499). > > IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, a protocol for the > handling of IDNs. In this document, "IDNA" refers specifically to the version > of those specifications known as "IDNA2008" [RFC5980 ff]. > > > Notes > ----- > While the proposed new text above borders on the painfully pedantic, > failure to be specific about these things undermines the technical validity > and > consistency of the text (making this a technical issue rather than exclusively > an editorial one like a missing reference). IDNA2008 [RFC5890 Section > 2.3.2.3] is very precise about what an "IDN" is (a definition incorporated by > reference in RFC 6365 and consistent with the definition in RFC 8499) , but > there are other things around that, e.g., assume either that "IDN" refers to a > label, not an FQDN; that an ASCII label, even one in ACE form, does not make > the FQDN in which it is imbedded an IDN; that all of the label components of > an IDN must be U-labels or A-labels, etc. Without the definition being clear, > some of the statements in the document make no sense. > > A reference to 8499 is suggested above because it is the most recent > authoritative definition (and because I didn't write it), but 5980 would be > equally legitimate if the authors prefer. > > Pinning down the IDNA definition is even more important. While there are > IDNA2008 references further on in the document, if the question of what the > generic term "IDNA" means is left to the imagination of the reader, then the > specification is missing language about what to do if, e.g., a query is > inconsistent with the U-label form of what is stored in the registry database > without mapping. The opportunity for that sort of problem is clearly created > by the "performs any local case mapping deemed necessary" statement in > Section 6.1 of the document, at least unless that case mapping is constrained > to not be applied to domain name labels (which the text definitely does not > say).
Some of the other acronyms in this section of RFC 7482 include references, so I think it's appropriate for these to be included as well. They do help with clarity and precision. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
