IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Modern Network Unicode — –02 submitted

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 08 July 2019 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24E11202EA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n1FSl3C4_sYr for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971C512006A for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-0220.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0220.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45jH063QBzzyY5; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <SY2PR01MB2764141CB5B9863D0B358C39E5F60@SY2PR01MB2764.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 22:21:10 +0200
Cc: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 584310068.589476-039f9fce3f2958f810b224951cfe9537
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <790BA1EF-7C0C-4E14-8BB2-4AD421ACAFB5@tzi.org>
References: <CE3AD543-5847-4CAA-9B37-B293BF74C7D8@tzi.org> <SY2PR01MB2764141CB5B9863D0B358C39E5F60@SY2PR01MB2764.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/0jyNPZ2PPIeFVFvnPKJLfaFK0gU>
Subject: Re: [art] Modern Network Unicode — –02 submitted
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 20:21:24 -0000

Hi James, Tim, Martin,

thank you for the quick feedback!  As suggested, I have started turning this into a standalone document (of course, still requiring RFC 3629, the UTF-8 definition):

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-02
Diff:           https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-02

I hope I haven’t missed anything important from RFC 5198 that I wanted to keep.  
Maybe time to involve the authors of that RFC…

Grüße, Carsten


> On Jul 8, 2019, at 04:18, Manger, James <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> 
> Would be nicer if it wasn't written as a diff from RFC5198 (Network Unicode). That is, if you could get all the rules directly from this doc. For instance, I assume Clean Modern Network Unicode must/should be NFC. Keep the RFC5198 comparisons for an informative annex.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email