Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:31:34 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
	Author(s)       : Paul Hoffman
                          John C Klensin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt
	Pages           : 46
	Date            : 2011-07-06

   This document provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when
   discussing internationalization.  The purpose is to help frame
   discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF
   and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:05:31 +0200

> Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

So that's the "mustardized" version for BCP status, moving
RFC 2047 to normative, good.

You could also list RFC 2119 as normative as part of this
"mustardization", and trim section 1.3 to "SHOULD" because
it's the only term needed, but that's a matter of taste.

For "stringprep" you replaced <stringprep> by <RFCtbd>.
That could be a typo if you actually mean <RFC3454>, or
more likely no <...> at all at the end of this paragraph.

You've refined "glyph code", did you ever consider to add
"glyph list"?  The "windows glyph list 4" was famous, and
I guess the concept is still relevant where full Unicode
support is no option.

-Frank