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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sun, 07 December 2014 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 E48701A8764 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:06:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 T7Fv3e3DqhM6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E41D1A8762 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so2598458lbv.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 06:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YK69OYRy2OD8XoP1/cgwvPdksvgKKGDu0B1S7NM0JA4=; b=s/T+ry5PPLOjw/RuXrsp5HkUt7ALZzYDbGnHGUEO2FXv0rCIBt1UXFZA/aabk3Wkcx vjSGJvI4y84aHwqCPZMU66WJAljRGSIy+2eCPPzeSSdx3OkC36fLyM5UnU4IaQ1cbjy4 t2y7RATtf9X1AIvLGu5PSq3g9TMLBBw5U+VDnYzMb/QUQlXtG+c78lCO9hxYMZSSg1dl xXEI1aEwS4Xal6dT6GwLyFsq7pyxHz9YySjLKWHQEfwCwWLjFnrFqUIOnYKcK/s3MWt+ vF+m0qpA2u2tYXuho1im19g8ULTBir6sfL8wU2c0wY6+Si238bak39uG6+dq3IJiVEH5 ax4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.55.7 with SMTP id n7mr5957358lbp.49.1417961176659; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 06:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.19.42 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:06:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <20141206170611.39377.qmail@ary.lan> <54833B14.7010104@cs.tcd.ie> <D1B5A541041D2171FB90DA03@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:06:16 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: P7ISfOdRaKTQENdgkqMFEaKf3Vw
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhkLd-ZceXV2cXk6kqiF7Eo=9b47m6ghtThjCAo4TiNHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-09)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d11e3d7f950509a0d043
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/w_D--SGw5KdwPU7RgmIB6G47z-U
Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:06:20 -0000

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 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".


That would be a silly approach. The reason we use ASCII is that our
protocols all deal in byte streams and it is a byte oriented encoding.

One point that we might want to reconsider however is the presentation of
the RFC. At the moment it is in TXT format which leads to the bootstrap
objection. And until recently that was the only option we had for
presenting RFCs.

Presenting a character encoding table is one specific case where an image
is more appropriate. Since that was how the original RFC20 was presented
and we are looking at a transcription into ASCII, it would be more
appropriate to reformat RFC20 in the new presentation format.

That would not require changing the number of course since none of the text
would change.