Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-06.txt

Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> Thu, 08 November 2007 23:24 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqGjL-00061E-24; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:24:11 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqGjI-00060y-UM; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:24:08 -0500
Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com ([206.16.17.211]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqGjI-0002M1-I0; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:24:08 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JR700KPYNO77C@usaga01-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JR700A2PNO3O8@usaga01-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:23:01 -0600
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-id: <08d701c8225e$4ed8f250$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <03ac01c820ec$d7cdab50$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com> <A7B15B3A3FF2B4720AB789BD@p3.JCK.COM> <tslir4c62sd.fsf@mit.edu>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, chris.newman@Sun.COM, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

So ... it seems to me that based on Sam's note, and John's previous note, a 
short statement at the beginning of the document that says approximately 
what Sam said would be very helpful. I'm not looking to challenge every 
SHOULD, especially in a BCP.

It would be helpful to say "this is our best guidance. There may be 
considerations that lead you to use other approaches (for example, building 
on existing work that uses other escapes), but consider the shortcomings of 
those approaches in making this decision".

Or something like that.


>I definitely think it is important that when using a URI or IRI in
> another protocol to be able to follow the conventions of the URI or
> IRI.  Similarly, even if we find a convention that we don't like I
> think it is valuable to be able to build on existing work rather than
> introduce confusion.

Thanks,

Spencer 



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf