Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)

<> Sat, 06 December 2014 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA771A006C for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:13:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRtJQK51PuVO for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 862DB1A004C for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by id A2/80-08051-A6173845; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:13:14 +0000
X-Originating-IP: []
X-StarScan-Version: 6.12.5; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 9310 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2014 21:13:14 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Dec 2014 21:13:14 -0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:13:14 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:13:13 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:13:12 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0031.000; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:13:12 +0000
From: <>
To: <>, <>, <>
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
Thread-Topic: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 21:13:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan> <>,<>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB460;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB460;
x-forefront-prvs: 0417A3FFD2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(51704005)(24454002)(199003)(479174003)(377454003)(122556002)(105586002)(87936001)(230783001)(68736005)(4396001)(40100003)(66066001)(33656002)(19580395003)(99396003)(20776003)(19580405001)(77096005)(76576001)(107046002)(21056001)(106356001)(15198665003)(1720100001)(106116001)(31966008)(54206007)(15395725005)(101416001)(77156002)(62966003)(97736003)(64706001)(50986999)(54356999)(120916001)(2656002)(74316001)(2501002)(74482002)(76176999)(86362001)(92566001)(54606007)(46102003)(15975445007)(102836002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB460;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:13:21 -0000

If RFC20 is made a full standard, then references to it must be to a particular paper copy (not necessarily the 'original'), since there's a chicken-and-egg problem in needing to have a
working implementation of RFC20 just to decode and read electronic transcriptions of RFC20.

Better to have a dependency outside the RFC series.

(The silliness of calling anything labelled 'request for comments' a standard is now, alas, traditional.)

Lloyd Wood
From: ietf <> on behalf of John C Klensin <>
Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 4:59:53 AM
To: Stephen Farrell;
Cc: John Levine;
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)

--On Saturday, December 06, 2014 17:21 +0000 Stephen Farrell
<> wrote:

> On 06/12/14 17:06, John Levine wrote:
>> PS: Thought experiment: Let's say we made RFC 20 a full
>> standard. What Bad Things will happen?
> Some people will be upset. Same as if we don't do that:-)

Based on working in some closely-related areas, the only
legitimate objection I can think of would come from folks who
would claim that ASCII has outlived its usefulness and that we
should drop all references to ASCII, US-ASCII, and RFC 20 in
favor of what I guess would be something like "the Basic Latin
and C0 repertoire of Unicode, represented by code points U+0000
through U+007F, coded in UTF-8".   However, if one takes that
position, then RFC 20 should be moved to Historic, all protocol
specs that we now have that reference ASCII should be viewed as
obsolescent, and we should refuse to accept any new specs that
depend on ASCII unless it is defined in those Unicode terms (see
my previous note and remember that includes almost anything that
depends on ABNF).  If only because it would generate a lot of
basically-useless work, I don't think we want to go there.

While it would affect very few specs in practice, there are also
some subtle differences between ASCII and the Unicode C0+Basic
Latin definition.

> I'm fine with pushing this one along the stds track and
> will kick that off next week. I need to go re-read whatever
> process stuff is involved, but if someone wants to be the
> shepherd for this, (I'm guessing one is needed/handy) then
> just mail me.

Since I started this and believe that very little is required
(and most of that is putting what has been written already into
shepherd template form), I'm willing to do it unless someone
else volunteers.

However, if there is anyone around with a little less experience
in this stuff than you, me, or John L and who would like to get
a first-hand introduction to the process of moving/shepherding a
document through the system with me playing advisor, I'd rather
spend my time that way than on template construction.  So, if
you or other IESG members, or any mentor or EDU team members who
happen to be reading this know likely candidates who could use
that bit of education (or someone out there wants to volunteer
themselves), speak up.

> PS: If Barry or anyone else wants to do this instead that's
> fine by me.