Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)

[Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>]

Adam, thanks for confirming.

Sabine, very well.  The IESG can look at your suggested changes and proceed
accordingly.

In the meantime, I think we should open up a thread in the ALTO WG (so we
don't disturb the IESG further with this issue) and reach consensus how to
proceed forward.  I will do so later today.

Thank you, all.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:30 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would personally opt for a Clarification draft for implementing RFC 7285
> with RFC 8259.
> Before we get there, the calendar specification may pave the way by making
> the use of UTF-8 to encode text sent by Calendar-aware Clients and Servers
> a MUST,  rather than a SHOULD as the proposed text in my previous e-mail
> suggested. Please see below the new text proposed for the backwards
> compatibility section. The MUST rule on UTF8 encoding will be distributed
> in the spec sections.
>
> We may add this to the operation considerations as well, and mention the
> possibility of a future clarification on RFC 7285 to make compliance with
> RFC 8259 mandatory.
>
> Thanks,
> Sabine
>
> <t>Last, for backwards compatibility with <xref target="RFC7285"/>,
>           this extension encodes its requests and responses using the JSON
>           Data Interchange Format specified in <xref target="RFC7159"/>.
>           The latter has been obsoleted by <xref target="RFC8259"/>,
>           that among others makes UTF-8 mandatory for text encoding to
>           improve interoperability. Therefore, Clients and Servers
> supporting
>           ALTO Calendars MUST use UTF-8 for text encoding while still
> being able to
>           successfully read texts in other encodings such as UTF-16 and
> UTF-32.</t>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:38 AM
> To: Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>; Kai GAO <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
> FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)
>
> On 1/30/19 4:26 PM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> > Do I get the sense that the WG thinks that this is the best course of
> > action?  (I must apologize as I am coming up to speed on this issue.
> > If I was to produce a 1 sentence summary of the issue here, it is that
> > RFC 8259 normatively requires UTF-8 encoding and that there are
> > existing ALTO implementations conformant to RFC 7285 that use
> > encodings other than UTF-8.  Is that accurate?).
>
>
> That's my understanding, modulo any other JSON changes you might want to
> highlight. Again, I think RFC 7647 provides a good example of how this kind
> of thing can be clarified.
>
> /a
>
>