Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20.txt> (Uniform Resource Names (URNs)) to Proposed Standard

[tom p. <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:20 PM
>
> --On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:04 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre -
> Filament <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On 2/21/17 10:40 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> >> How would you
> >> feel about making the phrase something closer to "the basic
> >> Latin repertoire, i.e., the letters and digits of ASCII as
> >> described above" and moving the RFC 20 citation to the first
> >> use of "ASCII" in that previous paragraph?
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >    In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible
> > when    protocols evolve and the environment around them
> > changes, URN    namespaces SHOULD NOT allow characters outside
> > the basic Latin    repertoire [RFC20] unless the nature of the
> > particular URN namespace    makes such characters necessary.
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >    In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible
> > when    protocols evolve and the environment around them
> > changes, URN    namespaces SHOULD NOT allow non-ASCII
> > characters [RFC6365] unless    the nature of the particular
> > URN namespace makes such characters    necessary.
> >
> > The term "non-ASCII" is defined in RFC 6365 and seems perfectly
> > appropriate here.
>
> Wfm.  Tom?

OK (after some thought).

As you surmise, I am not familiar with 'basic Latin' as a term of art
and did wonder if that was intended to exclude digits (since they came
to Europe later, with the Arabs).  The NEW text clarifies that.

Tom Petch




>
>     john
>
>
>