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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John,

I'll take you up on that.

It's a good point that this is a good way to dip a toe
in the process stuff, so if someone else for whom that'd
be a good plan mails me I'll let you know that they're
doing it instead.

Cheers,
S.

On 06/12/14 17:59, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, December 06, 2014 17:21 +0000 Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> thanks,
>    john
> 
> 
> 
> 
>