Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 23 October 2011 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584C521F899D for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRly4wbK8Eiq for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B956621F877F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7JX3B31UO016L9N@mauve.mrochek.com> for gen-art@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7HN0KKSXC00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01O7JX39CXXA00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:08:06 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:11:37 +0100" <4EA3B019.8020705@dcrocker.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"
References: <4E9DE6AE.2080603@ericsson.com> <99C46BEF-2D2E-4306-BBE4-BE1E7FFC29FA@vigilsec.com> <4EA0189C.1020001@ericsson.com> <4EA01FDF.6050206@qualcomm.com> <4EA02936.2070306@ericsson.com> <4EA03236.3010909@qualcomm.com> <4EA3B019.8020705@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: "Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "abelyang@twnic.net.tw" <abelyang@twnic.net.tw>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "ned+ietf@mrochek.com" <ned+ietf@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:12:59 -0000

> On 10/20/2011 3:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> >> So, if the limit is still 998, then there is no change with respect the former
> >> limit.
> >
> > See the next sentence:
> >
> > (Note that in
> > ASCII octets and characters are effectively the same but this is not
> > true in UTF-8.)
> >
> > Remember, in UTF-8, characters can be multiple octets. So 998 UTF-8 encoded
> > *characters* are likely to be many more than 998 octets long. So the change is
> > to say that the limit is in octets, not in characters.


> The switch in vocabulary is clearly subtle for readers.  (I missed it too.)

> I suggest adding some language that highlights the point, possibly the same
> language as you just used to explain it.

The document already contains text for this:

  Section 2.1.1 of [RFC 5322 limits lines to 998 characters and recommends that
  the lines be restricted to only 78 characters. This specification changes
  the former limit to 998 octets. (Note that in ASCII octets and characters
  are effectively the same but this is not true in UTF-8.) The 78 character
  limit remains defined in terms of characters, not octets, since it is
  intended to address display width issues, not line length issues.

Note the parenthetical comment in the middle of the paragraph.

I really don't see any point in further elaboration of this issue in this
context.

				Ned