Subject: [weirds] Combined response to - Re: WGLC reviews

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:41:55 +0000

I read the documents and have a few comments (mostly nits).  Hopefully
posting in one message is sufficient.

Overall the documents are ready for advancement in my opinion.  Just a few
nits, and wondering about the idea of “matching” non-ASCII strings beyond
U-labels.  (Which might appear in, say, internationalized email or names of
entities.)

draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-11.txt

No comments on that one, looks done to me.

draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-04.txt

section 2.1: change "provide authoritative answers***TBC”

section 2.2: change “TBD"

I haven’t thought of text for those.

draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-08.txt

Idle question - would DANE offer help for rogue CA's? (Not an ask to add to
doc.)  This thought occurred to me reading the security considerations about
the reliability of the certificate authorities.  Treat this as just an idle
thought, it was a knee-jerk reaction I had when reading the section.

draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-13.txt

section 3.1.1: Are odd-ball ranges (192.0.2.1-192.0.2.255) considered (as
relics of the past)?  (Asking for my education.)

page12: Is there a reference supporting the statement:

       "Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode"

section 6: What about non-IDN Unicode items?  E.g., email addresses.
Perhaps they are out of scope or section 3.2.3.

I’ve not learned much about matching or searching outside of the ASCII
character set, these comments are more based on ignorance than thinking that
something is missing.  Specifically, asking for a reference isn’t because I
disagree, I just want to know if there is something “establishing” that as
fact.

draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-03.txt

The document is correct, although the facts (numbers of TLDs) are dated.
I.e., there are over 21 gTLDs - “way” over now.  But the statement is
correct and I wouldn’t change anything - except - one of the editor’s
address has changed (ICANN moved offices sometime back).

draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-08.txt

Looks fine to me, send it on.

draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-06.txt

Some nits:

section 3: s/some defaults values/some default values/

section 3: s/no assumption of sorting at/no assumption of sorting within/

section 11: s/IANA own format/IANA's preferred format/ {perhaps?}

I’m not certain “preferred” is the right word, just a suggestion.

I believe that covers the open WGLC documents.

From:  "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date:  Monday, September 15, 2014 at 13:08
To:  "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  [weirds] WGLC reviews

> Colleagues,
> 
> The open WGLCs on all documents end this coming Friday evening.  I'm concerned
> that we've only seen reviews from myself and Tom Harrison.
> 
> Is anyone else planning to do some?
> 
> If not, I'm concerned about being able to represent to the IESG that these
> documents actually have consensus within the WG, which is of course required
> for us to proceed on our timeline.
> 
> -MSK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:07:05 -0400

> Perhaps they are out of scope or section 3.2.3.

I suppose you could just read the Unicode standard and particularly
how normalization works.  The problem is that some conceptual
characters are made up _only_ by combining code points, and there's no
way to know in advance whether the series of actual code points plus
the wildcard that you get is a conceptual-character-complete series of
code points or not.  

But I am not aware of a place that makes this point quite as simply as
the statement in the draft (which is strictly speaking an
oversimplification).

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:03:34 +0000

On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> section 3.1.1: Are odd-ball ranges (192.0.2.1-192.0.2.255) considered (as relics of the past)?  (Asking for my education.)

Nope. Only ARIN supports off-bit registrations and so it is not worth dorking up the query syntax to support that.

-andy

---

From: Ning Kong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:33:48 +0800

> The document is correct, although the facts (numbers of TLDs) are dated.  I.e., there are over 21 gTLDs - “way” over now.  But the statement is correct and I wouldn’t change anything - except - one of the editor’s address has changed (ICANN moved offices sometime back).
Thanks Ed. We’ll update the above information you mentioned.

Cheers,
Ning