draft-klensin-net-utf8-06
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 11 October 2007 19:49 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 1Ig42F-0004DW-Hv; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:31 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig42E-0004D7-1o for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig42D-0004Ct-OG for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:29 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig42B-00029B-7h for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:29 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ig427-000Nds-Gp for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:49:22 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06
Message-ID: <93F25E18AB3DA3EB0599F092@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
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
Ok, this document just went into the queue and should appear momentarily (probably before this message goes up). It is clearly less ready than the unicode-escapes one, partially because of the addition of a lot of new or revised text, but I hope we are converging: I will probably not have time to generate another draft --except possibly for _very_ minor changes-- prior to at least the middle of next month. I've tried to deal with the comments from Frank, Stephane, Clive, a few offlist comments, and the very extensive analysis from Martin. The comments that follow address some suggested changes that I did not make plus a few things that seem to deserve comments. (1) We obviously have a tension between those who like the history, context, and explanations and those who don't. Oddly, at least one person who asked for less then turned around and complained that one decision wasn't explained. Given people on both sides, I've tried to strike a balance, but it clearly reflects my/our editorial preferences. (2) There are many ways in which the document could be more or less radically reorganized. Some might make it better. Barring really compelling arguments, we aren't going to do it: the move of some material to appendices already fouled up some references (I hope this iteration fixes all of them) and the payoff just doesn't seem worth the additional time and iterations. (3) This document affects protocols, which the unicode-escapes one almost exclusively affects documentation and how the IETF talks about things. I have consequently tagged this one as destined for Proposed Standard and the other one as BCP. If you disagree, this is probably the time to speak up. (4) I've tried to clarify the text in several places, but I'm not sure I got one bit adequately. For CR, the rule is MUST NOT appear bare (i.e., MUST be followed by LF or NUL) SHOULD NOT appear with NUL I believe that is consistent. (5) I've added some words about both HT and FF. One may need to look in the appendices to find all of them. (6) I've eliminated references to IDNA entirely, substituting one to Stringprep where that appeared necessary. (7) The document is now linked to Unicode 5.0, with previous versions, notably 3.2, referenced only non-normatively in discussion. I hope the revision was done correctly; please tell me if it was not. Moving to 5.0 eliminates any possible need to go into detail about NFC changes after 3.2 but not the need to caution against the risk of similar changes in the future. (8) While a few people advocated it, I can't see making the NFC requirement a MUST. First, there are certainly reasonable cases in which it is not appropriate. Second, if NFC on sending is a MUST, then receivers have the right to expect that they will see only NFC-normalized forms on input. That assumption is dangerous, since, in general, there is no way to know whether a sender is following this spec. I hope the text is now consistent with that position. best, john
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Frank Ellermann
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Frank Ellermann
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Bill McQuillan
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Tim Bray
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Frank Ellermann
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 Tony Finch
- Re: draft-klensin-net-utf8-06 John C Klensin