Subject: Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:46:13 -0800

Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review result: Ready with Nits

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-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2018-11-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Seems perfectly fine to me, though (per nit below) one or two examples
might help a reader unfamiliar with Frogans (such as myself).

URI vs IRI seems consistent with my current understanding.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or two wouldn't
round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable to
constructing an example?

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:23:26 -0500

> round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable to

I agree in principle with this.  Looking at reference [IFAP], here are
two examples:

    leaptofrogans:mynetwork*mysite
    leaptofrogans:my-network*MySite

The syntax of frogan addresses is very carefully specified, but most of
the work seems to revolve around using Unicode well:  Frogans are fully
internationalized, so there's a lot of work in [IFAP] specifying how to
use Unicode so that an address aligns with the intuitive sense of "a
text string".

But beyond the fact that a frogan address is split into two parts by a
"*" character, there isn't much syntax that's easily displayed by a
series of ASCII examples.

Dale

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:53:49 -0800

> series of ASCII examples.

I understand about the limitations of the current RFC format w.r.t.
non-ASCII characters (but I suspect you wouldn't want to wait for the
new format to be readily available :-).

FWIW I think those two examples would be perfectly fine.  They may not
seem overly expressive or especially illustrative, but including them
might scratch an itch for some readers.

But it's certainly not anything worth holding up publication for, IMHO.