[art] Re: [Last-Call] Re: [SPICE] Re: Re: draft-ietf-spice-glue-id-04 ietf last call Artart review

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Patrik and John.
 
John C Klensin <[e-mail]> writes:
> However, I think that what Patrik and I are saying in different 
> ways is that, if you start by specifying syntax, rather than 
> having the WG understand the issues involved, including the 
> decisions that need to be made, and having at least preliminary 
> draft text to deal with them, you just specify syntax, you 
> invite a world of pain and hurt.

Please please please don't start with syntax.

> That is especially important since there may be interactions 
> between substantive choices and optimal choices of encoding 
> systems (and hence syntax).   Even if you say "just do what RFC 
> 3987 IRIs do", that raises other issues, starting with whether 
> that is really the best spec to cite for (if I understand the 
> intent of the SPICE work correctly) in the definition of a URN 
> namespace.  So I am suggesting that the order of events/ 
> consideration should be: 
> 
> (1) Decide whether non-ASCII identifiers are going to be 
> allowed.  If not, preferentially explain why and incorporate the 
> explanation in the document.  If so...

At a quick glance, all of the current identifier authorities 
appear to use arabic digits. It's not obvious to me that even the 
full ASCII range is required. But if ASCII letters are required, I 
suspect that the same argument will apply to other letters.

> And, unfortunately, Patrik and I both have scars from attempts 
> to do this in other ways, including "syntax first, rules and 
> semantics later" approaches.  So do many others around the IETF. 
> Let's not make that mistake again. 

Yes yes yes yes yes.

Arnt