Mapping Characters for Classes of the Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings (PRECIS)
RFC 7790

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-03 for -11)
No email
send info
Vijay Gurbani's Gen-ART review pointed out a possible need to refer to RFC 2119. Can the authors check this?

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-02 for -11)
No email
send info
I don't have substantive comments, but I do have a fair number of editorial comments. There are a number of places where I found the sentence structure very hard to follow. I apologize for not suggesting text, but for the most part I was not sure of the intent. Details follow:

-2.3, first paragraph, note:
I'm having trouble parsing that sentence, starting with "Because".

-2.3, 3rd paragraph: 
s/"... Case Folding in PRECIS framework..."/"... Case Folding in the PRECIS framework..."

"Local case mapping defined in this document corresponds to demands from applications which supports  users’ locale and/or context."
I don't follow the sentence.

-2.3, 2nd to last paragraph:
I suggest avoiding 2119 keywords when referring to requirements from other specs-- especially since _this_ draft doesn't have the 2119 boilerplate.

-2.3, last paragraph:
I can't parse the paragraph.

-- 6:
I don't understand the meaning of "need for the case folding about the mapping"

-- Appendix B:
I'm having a lot of trouble following the sentence structure for the whole section.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-02 for -11)
No email
send info
- The write-up didn't tell me if this is likely to be
considered as neutral by the Unicode folks, or as
something non-neutral. I'm curious about that, but not
concerned much. I do think the IESG should be aware
though if this is something that might cause e.g.
liaison fun for the IAB later on.  (I'm not saying I
think it does/would btw, just that I'd like to know if
it might.)

- The secdir review [1] raised an issue and some
changes were proposed for a -12 version that hasn't
yet popped out (which is fine). This is just to note
that to decrease the probability we forget:-)

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05900.html

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-03 for -11)
No email
send info
opsdir review was performed by     

Mahesh Jethanandani

who notes a significant number of  nits in draft 11 so you'll want to look at it through the tool

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-02 for -11)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing the SecDir review with text coming in the next version.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2015-09-01 for -11)
No email
send info
Just a small nit.

Section 2.3. (Local case mapping) includes the phrase "It is RECOMMENDED to use…”, which looks like an RFC2119 keyword, but that RFC is not referenced in the document.  The phrase is used to refer to what is specified in RFC7564..but it may confusing.  Maybe using quotation marks to make it clear that the text comes form somewhere else, and using a reference would help.