Barry,
5) Statement that the string contains an FQDN, as stated for one case of
the Tunnel-Client-Endpoint AVP in 4.5.4. That specific statement is
incomplete, as it needs to be accompanied by a normative reference to
a document that specifies the format of internationalized domain
names, and probably needs to also state which types of labels (e.g.,
A-label, U-label) are allowed.
Every use of UTF8String in this draft needs to be checked, and most
of them are likely to need some attention. The ongoing work in the
precis WG may help with some of this, and I would suggest talking to
the APP ADs, especially Pete Resnick (hi Pete) before embarking on
significant work in this area in order to avoid wasted or duplicated
efforts.
OK, this last one bothers me a lot: you /seem /to be suggesting that we hold
up this draft to wait for the result of a WG which has yet to publish a
problem statement. I'm sure that that is not the case, but it sure sounds
like it.
David can clarify if I'm wrong, but that's not what it sounds like to
me. What it sounds like he's suggesting is that you talk with the
precis people to see if things are OK, or if there's anything you
should be doing differently. I'm adding the precis chairs to this
message, and asking them to respond to this point.
It's somewhere in between, as things are definitely *not* OK at the moment,
but my reason for suggesting a discussion with the précis folks is to take
advantage of their insights and work to date. If I thought this draft needed
to wait for the output of the précis WG, I would have indicated which précis
draft ought to be a normative reference (and I did not do that). Whether
that's a good idea will only be clear after every use of UTF8String is checked.
FWIW, the FQDN situation is worked out, start with a normative reference to
RFC 5890, which includes the specification of the various label types.
A tangential point, while I'm here:
[4] Based on this text in 4.4.9:
The use of this AVP is NOT RECOMMENDED; the AVPs defined by
Korhonen, et al. [RFC5777] SHOULD be used instead.
I would have expected RFC5777 to be a Normative Reference, not an
Informative Reference.
I don't care particularly, but I don't think that it's really necessary to
understand RFC 5777 to understand this document.
It would seem odd, in general, if something that's a "MUST implement"
or "SHOULD implement" weren't a normative reference. But I haven't
(yet) looked at this particular case to see.
My expectation is the same - if [RFCxxxx] is specified as "MUST implement"
or "SHOULD implement", then I usually expect that RFC to be a normative
reference.
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------