IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 29 May 2011 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C50E075E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.505
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKy4UN-uzpkf for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3292EE0750 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QQm0P-000Jmi-4n; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:50:33 -0400
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 15:50:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <82F537AF2A1B70A69E256960@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <EE002E66-614D-4AC5-A0D7-52E2C8C457FF@vpnc.org>
References: <20110523221903.11394.18650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DDADF21.108@stpeter.im> <1E0BD491A5C0210B48BA7043@PST.JCK.COM> <B8E0C6E6-C335-4C5A-A171-209118113348@frobbit.se> <62BF38B4A0358DF278AC5678@PST.JCK.COM> <EE002E66-614D-4AC5-A0D7-52E2C8C457FF@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:50:43 -0000

--On Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:24 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On May 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>...
>>> <t><xref target="RFC5892">RFC 5892</xref> specifies an
>>> algorithm that    was defined when 
>> 
>> Please say "rule set" or something like that, not "algorithm".
>> While "algorithm" is strictly correct, some people will read
>> it as pseudo-code, and our principle should remain that
>> anything that produces the save results is correct.
> 
> Do you think this change follows the definition of "rule set"
> in RFC 5892? To me, "algorithm" seems much better. From the
> introduction to 5892:    This document reviews and classifies
> the collections of code points    in the Unicode character set
>...

Sorry, had forgotten that sentence in the Introduction.   Given
that, you are right: "algorithm" is better and we should stick
with it.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email