Re: draft-costello-rfc3492bis
[email protected] (Martin v. Löwis)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email protected]> writes: > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-costello-rfc3492bis-00.txt I just looked at it, and have these comments: > In sections 6.2 "Decoding procedure" and 6.3 "Encoding procedure", > added statements to emphasize that overflow handling is REQUIRED, > NOT OPTIONAL. "NOT OPTIONAL" is not a keyword of RFC2119. "OPTIONAL" is, and it is a synonym of "MAY". The usage of "NOT OPTIONAL" is redundant with the "MUST". It's not immediately obvious why some operations (e.g. inside adapt) don't perform overflow checking, but (without further review) I assume there is some guarantee that it can't overflow. Regards, Martin