Last Call Review of draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02
review-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02-genart-lc-halpern-2019-08-08-00
| Request | Review of | draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-08-30 | |
| Requested | 2019-08-02 | |
| Authors | John Klensin, Patrik Fältström | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-08-08 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Christopher Wood
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel Halpern (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joel Halpern |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02-genart-lc-halpern-2019-08-08 | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ZJBs9q5PhuBFD-e0_J9owY6vhlw | |
| Reviewed rev. | 02 (document currently at 05) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2019-08-08 |
Review
review-klensin-idna-unicode-review-02-genart-lc-halpern-2019-08-08
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-unicode-review-02 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2019-08-08 IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-30 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: THis document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard This reviewer found the document quite readable and clear about what it was doing (with one minor issue noted below.) The reviewer does not have the background to evaluate whether the technical substance is correct or incorrect, and leaves that to the community review. The document is quite persuasive. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: I would like to see a little more explicit text in section 3.2. It was not until I reached the IANA considerations (section 8) that I realized that section 3.2 intended to mandate that the IESG create and where applicable use a broad review team for the new code point review. I think a sentence or so along the lines of "Creation of this team when needed is a new responsibility placed on the IESG by this document." would have helped. Nits/editorial comments: N/A