Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

["rontlv" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

The IANA registry is in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/idnabis-tables/idnabis-tables.xml#idnabis-ta
bles-properties
I saw that in the beginning it has as reference RFC 5892 for the whole
table. Will it stay this way after the change proposed in this draft and
just the three individual values will change based on 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3? or
are there no changes in the IANA registry at all. This is unclear to me
according to the section 3 of your draft.

Section 5.1 of RFC5892 says "If non-backward-compatible changes or other
problems arise during the
   creation or designated expert review of the table of derived property
   values, they should be flagged for the IESG." . My question was if the
change is backward compatible. The 5892bis draft does not say it.

Thanks
Roni




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:13 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 'IETF-Discussion list'
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04
> 
> On May 29, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> 
> > Major issues:
> >
> > 1.       I am not sure how the IANA consideration section is in-line
> with the IANA consideration section of RFC5892. Maybe some
> clarification text would be helpful.
> 
> We think that the IANA considerations here are, in fact, what RFC 5892
> was designed for. That is, RFC 5892 says that the registry will be
> updated ("IANA has created a registry with the derived properties for
> the versions of Unicode released after (and including) version 5.2"),
> and this is such an update. Please let me know if that doesn't match
> your understanding.
> 
> > 2.       The IANA registry for derived property value has RFC 5892,
> does this draft want to change the reference, how will it be done.
> 
> Section 2 of the draft is pretty clear here: "No change to RFC 5892 is
> needed based on the changes made in Unicode 6.0".
> 
> >   I think that it relates also to the issue of whether this draft
> updates RFC 5892.
> 
> And here too.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6185 (20110606) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6186 (20110607) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com