Re: [I18ndir] Review volunteer needed (Fwd: [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick look over and the heads up. Is anyone willing to 
take this on? I will shortly start going after individuals.

pr

On 28 Apr 2020, at 20:41, John C Klensin wrote:

> Pete,
>
> Since some hours have gone by without a response to your message
> and I was in need of an excuse to delay getting to an unpleasant
> task...
>
> This note does not constitute either a review or an offer to do
> one, but I just took a quick look at RFC 4329 and the diff and,
> in a few seconds, found one statement/requirement in 4329 that
> is unchanged (although circumstances have) that is an invitation
> to a world of grief.  In addition, given Section 4.1, the
> algorithm in 4.2 (both versions) is incomplete and can result in
> a fairly serious error.
>
> Moreover, if I correctly understand what seems like unnecessary
> convoluted text (in both versions) a BOM is ignored in further
> processing if the character encoding scheme is determined to be
> UTF-8 in 4.2(2) or 4.2(3) but not ignored if charset="UTF-8" is
> present and the BOM occurs anyway (something clearly allowed by
> RFC 3629).  That doesn't appear to make sense.  If it was
> intended, enough of an explanation would be in order that the
> reader does not concluded it is just a mistake in the document
> (I notice the I-D already corrected a mistake in 4329).  So,
> having spent five minutes with 4329 and the diff and another
> five writing this note, I can say with some confidence that the
> I-D needs work and that someone is going to need to work with
> the document authors to explain the issues, some of which are
> substantive, not just text in need of tuning, and sort things
> out.   You may be looking for a volunteer to do that job, not
> just an early reviewer.
>
> Back to lurking.
>     john
>
>
>
>
> --On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 14:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> DISPATCH has made a working group last call on
>> draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs. Given how much i18n
>> content there is, the ADs and chairs agreed that an early
>> review wouldn't hurt. There is a bunch of text about formal
>> programming languages in this draft, so I didn't want to just
>> stick somebody with it. Anyone feel comfortable enough to take
>> on a review?
>>
>> Note that the review itself is much less horrible than it
>> seems. This is really a -bis draft of RFC 4329, and most of
>> the i18n language in here is unchanged from 4329. See:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4329&url2=draft-ietf-disp
>> atch-javascript-mjs-07
>>
>> So it's really just reviewing any changes, and making sure
>> that nothing absolutely egregious was in 4329 itself.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> pr
>>
>> Forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
>>> To: DISPATCH WG <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: dispatch chairs <[e-mail]>, ART ADs
>>> <[e-mail]>,
>>> [e-mail] Subject:
>>> [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:24:47 -0500
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This is a repeat working group last call of
>>> draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascri
>>> pt-mjs/
>>>
>>> The new version has changed quite a bit due to feedback from
>>> the first  WGLC, shepherd feedback, and feedback from others.
>>> In particular, this  version obsoletes RFC 4329, rather than
>>> updating as did the version  from the first WGLC.
>>>
>>> This WGLC will end on 8 May 20202. Please send feedback to
>>> the  DISPATCH list and the authors. And if you review the
>>> document and  think it's ready to go, please say so.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ben


-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best