Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6365 (4005)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

John, your argument may well be absolutely correct, but this is also
absolutely *not* an error in the specification.  You and Paul
certainly *meant* to say "US-ASCII", and, while in retrospect perhaps
you shouldn't have, it's not an issue for an errata report.

Am I wrong here?

Barry

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:32 PM, RFC Errata System
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6365,
> "Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6365&eid=4005
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: John Klensin <john=[e-mail]>
>
> Section: GLOBAL
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> US-ASCII
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> ASCII
>
> Notes
> -----
> The term "US-ASCII" is an IETF artifact, left over from some misunderstandings about what "ASCII" referred to (and the complete absence of CSCII or CASCII, MSCII or MXSCII, BRSCII, ARSCII, and other "American" coded character sets).  It is a source of confusion for people who come to IETF specifications with a background in coded character sets and terminology from other areas or standards bodies and has been warned against multiple times.  It should not have appeared in this document except possibly with a warning against its use (and the use of other bogus terms like "ASCII7").  The second author, who is normally sensitive to the issue, has no idea how this got past him, even in text picked up from other documents, but supposes this is what errata are for.
>
> In any event, there is no such thing as "US-ASCII": the term is an erroneous and misleading synonym/ substitute for "ASCII".  The reference for the latter is correct, but the citation anchor should probably be corrected as well.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6365 (draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
> Publication Date    : September 2011
> Author(s)           : P. Hoffman, J. Klensin
> Category            : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG