Re: [apps-discuss] Documenting UTF-1 as Historic

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 10 June 2011 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 7EBE811E81D7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 4Mxfm-VVKZuk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BB711E81C6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=3068; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307727944; x=1308937544; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=95QYT0fZ6RFBeTT7u8TWPphm2Yx6wxadOEp+d6i3MV0=; b=iOZVSn02BkpUhb5hTyLUY9gHvTS4SIlmI+1mp0XxHHeN0Hp2BeKQM0l0 h64eFbHsrzOngdCVIF4LZDUBb3vjbe4SC9lv3hgLSQgnwSwe7Z270bsbc tkbsV64H2fUu4ixeTKwXrXn4m+vcMjXmeEpgQxQYNTU71WvfqZmgdGv+5 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAHZX8k2Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABShEmiA3eIcp4ojSeQY4UZgQoEkSuPWQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,348,1304294400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="34727807"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2011 17:45:43 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-55-91-129.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-91-129.cisco.com [10.55.91.129]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5AHjhTm015609; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:45:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4DF25847.9000007@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:45:43 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
References: <4DF23976.4080301@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF23976.4080301@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050609090607000201060705"
Cc: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Documenting UTF-1 as Historic
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: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:45:45 -0000

>
> There are a number of RFCs defining transformation formats of ISO
> 10646/Unicode - various UTFs.  I mean RFC 3629 (UTF-8), RFC 2152
> (UTF-7), RFC 2781 (UTF-16) and others.  However, I've noticed UTF-1
> isn't properly documented (or, at least, there is no formal record of
> it).  However, since UTF-1 has never been widely used, I suppose it
> could be formally documented in Historic RFC, taking
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/178.pdf as a basis.  Any thoughts
> on this?

Yes.  The time of the IESG and the IETF  and the RFC Editor is precious.
 In order for the work to be done it should be important to do for the
sake of guiding actual implementations.  As such, let me restate
Julian's question:

    * Which implementors or what user base are in need of knowing either
      the proper application of UTF-1 in our various specification or
      that it should not be used (e.g., marked Historic)?

If you cannot enumerate at least a small group where this has actual
impact, let me suggest that we allow for this gap in our compendium of RFCs.

Eliot