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, 07 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.
- Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json-tex… Black, David
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Barry Leiba
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John Levine
- Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir re… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… l.wood
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Dave Cridland
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Barry Leiba
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Carsten Bormann
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- Re: Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 joel jaeggli
- RE: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status of … Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Nico Williams
- Re: Integrity protection for RFCs (was Re: Status… manning bill
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John Levine
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Dave Crocker
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Cited documents, was Status of RFC 20 John C Klensin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Nico Williams
- RE: Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-json… Black, David
- Re: [Json] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ie… John Cowan
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… Julian Reschke
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… ned+ietf
- Re: Status of RFC 20 (was: Re: Gen-ART and OPS-Di… John C Klensin