draft-klensin-net-utf8-07

Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de> Thu, 17 January 2008 21:25 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFcEP-0000o2-12; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:25:01 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JD7cK-00015f-9F for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:19:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD7cJ-00015X-Vm for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:19:23 -0500
Received: from gateway.tr-sys.de ([213.178.172.147] helo=WOTAN.TR-Sys.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD7cI-00023u-B3 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:19:23 -0500
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3) id AA267350703; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:18:23 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id TAA09710; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:01:58 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@tr-sys.de>
Message-Id: <200801101801.TAA09710@TR-Sys.de>
Subject: draft-klensin-net-utf8-07
To: john-ietf@jck.com, the.map@alum.mit.edu
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:01:57 +0100 (MEZ)
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:25:00 -0500
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Hello,
after studying the Internet-Draft authored by you,
         draft-klensin-net-utf8-07 ,
I once again would like to point you to a few small textual flaws
I found left in the current version of that memo, and some metadata
considerations.


(1)  Section 4, last paragraph -- word replication

Please remove the spurious duplicate word 'were' :

   Were such changes to be were made, the IETF would be ...
---                        ^^^^^
   Were such changes to be made, the IETF would be ...


(2)  Appendix B

(2a)  list item # 4., 3rd-to-last line -- typo

    s/unlkely/unlikely/

(2b)  last paragraph

The draft says:

   It is worth noting that the telnet IAC character (an octet consisting
   of all ones, i.e., %xFF) itself is not a problem for UTF-8.  [...]

For clarification, I suggest to amend this sentence,
explaining why that's the case, for instance:

   It is worth noting that the telnet IAC character (an octet consisting
   of all ones, i.e., %xFF) itself is not a problem for UTF-8, because
   it is not a legal codepoint in UTF-8 and as such can easily be
   discerned by a telnet style command processor that will strip the
   entire command sequences from the data stream before handing the
   proper Network Unicode text to the application layer (or a user
   interface).  [...]


(3)  Relationship to other documents

The last item in D.2 says:

   o  Clarified relationships to existing protocols, stressing that this
      is not, in itself, a proposal to change any of them.

This is in contrast to the heading of the memo saying:
  Obsoletes: RFC 698 (if approved)      <-- Telnet extended ASCII Option
  Updates: RFC854 (if approved)         <-- Telnet

IMHO, the above statement does not hold strictly any more with
the current draft text.

But if we accept the draft to change protocols
(or at least one, Telnet), wouldn't it make sense
to declare this draft to also obsolete
RFC 1641, (RFC 1642 -->) RFC 2152,
and perhaps other early IETF I18N documents as well?

In particular, the registrations for legacy representations of
Unicode should be marked "deprecated" in the IANA charset registry;
to this end, a substantive IANA Considerations section needs to be
added to the draft.


Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+