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

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

Hi Paul,
My understanding that the new value does not replace the current one since
5892bis is not updating rfc5892. So should the IANA registry reflect that
you are not replacing the current value or is my understanding wrong
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:39 PM
> To: rontlv
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 'IETF-Discussion list'
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04
> 
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:56 AM, rontlv wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The table will likely change, based on the input of the expert
> reviewer. I assume that a reference to this RFC-to-be would be added to
> the top of the table, next to "[RFC5892]". That is, this would be an
> additional reference, not a replacement. But that's up to IANA.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The draft says:
>    This imply the derived property value differs
>    depending on whether the property definitions used are from Unicode
>    5.2 or 6.0.
> We intended that as "non-backwards-compatible"; we can change the
> wording to make that explicit.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6186 (20110607) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6188 (20110607) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com