[dispatch] Re: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf

[Rob Sloan <[e-mail]>]

> The distinction is extra-important in this case because Section 3 of
draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf-01 uses "encoding" to refer, not to
Unicode encodings like UTF-8 but the choice between "binary" and "json".

Thank you, I believe I follow your concern: encoding is indeed quite
overloaded. There is also a potential confusion with `charset`; but the
text seems sufficiently specific.

> address different levels of complexity, and are more or less
complementary, both should be referenced, not one or the other.

Certainly, I am happy to reference both.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 2:02 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, July 16, 2025 10:29 -0400 Rob Sloan
> <rmsj=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > I have applied these adjustments in this change
> > <https://github.com/wkumari/draft-murray-dispatch-mime-protobuf/com
> > mit/b0ea8374ea3e0a76f5105b95197cfce2e81bfef2>
> >
> >> at least one of the two examples in that paragraph that mention
> >> "UTF-8"
> > is probably wrong
> >
> > Sorry, which example are you referring to?
> >
> > I have rewritten `UTF-8 encodings` as `Unicode text` as it sounds
> > like that is one correction to make here
>
> That should do most of it and sorry for not being more explicit.
> There are actually two issues.
>
> The first problem, which we seem to be encountering in several
> contexts, is that UTF-8 is a specific encoding of Unicode.  While it
> is generally the preferred one in data interchanged these days, it is
> not the only one and it is therefore generally important to talk
> about "Unicode text" or equivalent, as you have now done unless
> whatever is being said is very specific to the UTF-8 encoding.
>
> The distinction is extra-important in this case because Section 3 of
> draft-ietf-dispatch-mime-protobuf-01 uses "encoding" to refer, not to
> Unicode encodings like UTF-8 but the choice between "binary" and
> "json".
>
> The second issue, independent of the above, is with Murray's note
> from yesterday [1] which, in turn, refers to Rob's "alternate
> proposal" [2].   The new text at 201-202 there includes:
>
>         "Further, handling UTF-8 encodings generally can be quite
>         complex with problems discussed, for example, in
>         {{UniChars}};..."
>
> The problem there is that draft-bray-unichars involves a relatively
> non-complex mechanism and discussion.  If you want to address the
> complexity issues, it would be good to reference something that
> actually does discuss them in addition to draft-bray-unichars.  While
> there are other places when that discussion occurs, the most obvious,
> and probably appropriate, one in the IETF context is the PRECIS work
> so what I suggested was referencing it as well.  Tim's July 7 note
> [3] (and apparently an earlier one) says almost the same thing, i.e.,
>
>         "The IETF has both PRECIS and the recently-IESG-approved
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bray-unichars/ both of
>         which recommend restricting the set of Unicode characters
>         allowed in protocols and data structures.  I think it would
>         be useful if the media-type registration mentioned this
>         work,..."
>
> but could, I suppose, be considered ambiguous about to what "this
> work" refers. Because the explanations in the PRECIS work and in
> draft-bray-unichars are different (as described above), address
> different levels of complexity, and are more or less complementary,
> both should be referenced, not one or the other.
>
> Does that clarify the concerns and proposed solutions?
>
>     john
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/xmDC0X1_mnBcYCc3Tk8iTcqkFhk
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/wkumari/draft-murray-dispatch-mime-protobuf/commit/c666f8e1c6810cbc54b0e93658e1ae6ec3dc5886
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ghl9YaYfK6wAik7-qQUy22sgbxc
>
>