Ready with nits/comment

The draft itself does not directly deal with the DNS protocol but does discuss the DNS as it relates to IDNA. Overall
the draft may seem confusing at times to readers unfamiliar with IDNA, this doesn't necessarily need to be fixed, as
it is assumed the intended audience understands the current state of IDNA in the IETF and in use with the DNS.

The sections that update RFC 5890 and 5891 are clear and provide enough information to understand the changes.  

One part that seems confusing: in Section 4, paragraph 6, there is a sentence:

   "IDNA (and IDNs generally) would work better and
   Internet users would be better protected and more secure if
   registries and registrars (of any type) confined their registrations
   to scripts and code point sequences that they understood thoroughly."

Not sure who the "they" are in this sentence: the registry/registrars, or Internet users? I assume it is the former,
but a case could be made for the latter - registry/registrars should confine registrations to to scripts and code points that
their primary user base understood. If that is possible. Either way, this is a recommendation and not a protocol requirement so 
the wording does not need to be changed. 

Some of the recommendations may feel out of scope for the IETF and more in the realm of ICANN, but the logic in the draft primarily 
focuses on the technical (domain names/labels that use scripts that may appear confusing or used for malicious purposes should be
prevented as a security policy). This draft has no issues from a DNS protocol perspective however. 

There is also a forward reference, is that known to be the title of the reference?  If not, does it need to be included?  

Scott