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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 06 December 2014 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B381A00A7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQNBWKD8SJ1h for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26261A0115 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9F0BEEC; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 18:06:56 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmAvZGOrFT7S; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 18:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.46.19.212]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6EA6BEDA; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 18:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <548345BE.30601@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 18:06:54 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
References: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan> <54833B14.7010104@cs.tcd.ie> <D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TmKCOk9VbkQNCNd17Y9tXTWZBDM
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, stbryant@cisco.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 18:11:23 -0000

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
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>