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

["Miguel A. Garcia" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave:

Some inline comments.

On 19/10/2010 13:05, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 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 have several questions on the above statement. I hope you can elaborate 
a bit more.

- Is canonicalization or comparison required for the registry itself or 
for the protocols which use the registry?

- Can you indicate what is the real need of canonicalization? I mean, is 
it for avoiding duplication of vendor names in the registry, or for usage 
by the protocols (but what for)?


> 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.

This does not help me. If I want to register a vendor name that includes 
non-ASCII characters, my registration will be rejected.

BR,

     Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
[phone]
Ericsson Spain