Someone with appropriate access will need to document our verification of this report:
"This page is for use by specified members of the IAB, IESG, IRSG, RFC Editorial Board, and the RFC Editor. Please contact rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org with questions.". Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us> > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:14 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; a...@arin.net; b...@nostrum.com; > aamelni...@fastmail.fm; a...@nostrum.com; o...@nlnetlabs.nl; > superu...@gmail.com; john-i...@jck.com; wei...@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7482 (5621) > > 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
