I agree. -andy
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:43 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > -----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 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
