Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry-01.txt

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Tue Oct 19 11:14:03 2010, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
> - I am surprised to see the reduction of characters to ASCII only.  
> I don't know how this fits with the IETF Internationalization  
> strategy for most protocols. Additionally, this issue touches me  
> personally, as a Spanish citizen, where I would not be able to  
> register strings containing certain characters due to the lack of  
> their representation in ASCII.
> 
> So, this draft is precluding international names be registered with  
> IANA. I think this is a major issue that should be addressed.
> 
> 
The original registry definition allowed UTF-8 registrations, but had  
no canonicalization or comparison defined, which I think you'd agree  
would be "interesting".

I decided to avoid these registrations, but note that the actual  
syntax of the registry remains UTF-8, it's only the registration  
procedures that are restricted - and note that I've explicitly  
suggested that a future revision might change that.

FWIW, I also live somewhere where the lack of diacriticals would  
cause problems for local registrations, so I'm not unaware of the  
issues. My gut feeling remains, though, that as a first step an  
ASCII-only registry that's properly cleaned up and defined is more  
useful than a further delay.

> Minor issues:
> 
> - I think this document should update ACAP (RFC 2244). This should  
> be visible in the front page, so that the RFC Editor records an  
> update to RFC 2244.
> 
> - I think that the [ACAP] reference should be promoted to normative  
> (moved from Section 7.2 to 7.1).
> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> - Section 3, write a formal reference to UTF-8 int he first  
> sentence.
> 
> - Section 3.3, last sentence in second paragraph , make a formal  
> reference to ANNOTATE.

These look reasonable, thanks.

Dave.