I found SRFI 128 interesting.  Here are some minor comments based on a
quick reading of Draft #1 (2015/10/26).  Caveat: I have not caught up
with the discussion of SRFI 114, which is obviously relevant.

  * There is a partial sentence at the end of the second paragraph of
    the Rationale section.

  * There is an extra "p>" at the beginning of the Specification
    section.

  * For the comparator returned by make-pair-comparator: It is
    probably obvious, but is it correct that the returned comparator
    implements equality as conjunction of car and cdr equality predicates,
    and similarly for the type-test?

  * I believe that the text uses "result of that comparison" (e.g., in
    the description o make-list-comparator) to denote the result of the
    ordering predicate.  If true, using "result of the ordering predicate"
    may be clearer.

  * An observation similar to the above also applies to
    make-vector-comparator.

  * Missing space in "functinonumber-hash" (7th item in
    make-default-comparator's description).

  * In the "Comparison predicates" section: I think the intent is
    clear, but the description does not explicitly refer to the equality
    and ordering predicates of 'comparator' and uses 'comparison
    procedure' instead.

  * Earlier (in Constructors), is the note "..., since comparators are
    pure and functional".  Is it true that the bundled procedures are
    therefore explicitly prohibited from causing side effects?  A more
    explicit statement either way would be useful.

Regards,

-chaw