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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 23 October 2011 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 9E0C021F8A69; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 t7nHAyVFSZtm; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A1D21F89BA; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1RI1CO-0005sd-6f; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:47:00 -0400
X-Vipre-Scanned: 06FFE5C4002A6306FFE711-TDI
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:46:58 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <A3FEDDC05281E0C0B4764A64@[192.168.1.128]>
In-Reply-To: <4EA3B019.8020705@dcrocker.net>
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>
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
Cc: Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com, ietf@ietf.org, abelyang@twnic.net.tw, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, 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 16:47:14 -0000

--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:11 +0100 Dave CROCKER
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
>> 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.

In addition to what might be useful/ necessary for readers of
5335bis, in retrospect, we ought to have a prominent comment in
one of the more generic i18n documents that highlights the fact
that the, once one moves beyond ASCII, length-in-characters and
length-in-octets, can no longer be assumed to be the same.  When
one is actually talking about storage length,
length-in-characters should be prohibited from our vocabulary
going forward.  That would actually make an interesting
extension to a nits-checker if someone could figure out how to
do it or, at least, a flag to the RFC Editor about something
they should watch out for.

    john