Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Wed, 06 July 2011 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.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 24ECC21F8AB4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 wn8heqPGHHZa for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16F421F8AA7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so167474pwj.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=93Op6qjvAIcIyGPxxwntHNiRs8QpiRiMpA3VpB7umxI=; b=NYqGmoP2lqgkhaRsCYzeIOe2bKEFhsfb86udIwPoqyygvB8gX+6Me5vijxwJYXi0o1 KP87pteHbH+pu4irxZ5WF172H1nfwcn1iyeGCEviPuF0eF+Xm5+/0+hRuSKBZmi+xB64 oA7MfElNAByQ4b3apYahYE0ai8E1G0d2NVW7Y=
Received: by 10.142.120.39 with SMTP id s39mr4298508wfc.237.1309979151165; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.88.9 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110706163134.31942.24863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20110706163134.31942.24863.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:05:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybq3MJeTRAbKXoOgyEcnuVL5m9q+cM2ioX0nAyBhiaudYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: john+ietf@jck.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:05:52 -0000

On 6 July 2011 18:31,  <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

> Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-05.txt

So that's the "mustardized" version for BCP status, moving
RFC 2047 to normative, good.

You could also list RFC 2119 as normative as part of this
"mustardization", and trim section 1.3 to "SHOULD" because
it's the only term needed, but that's a matter of taste.

For "stringprep" you replaced <stringprep> by <RFCtbd>.
That could be a typo if you actually mean <RFC3454>, or
more likely no <...> at all at the end of this paragraph.

You've refined "glyph code", did you ever consider to add
"glyph list"?  The "windows glyph list 4" was famous, and
I guess the concept is still relevant where full Unicode
support is no option.

-Frank