Re: [EAI] Proposed resolution of List-* and downgrade- Issues

At 3:18 PM +0900 7/30/08, Martin Duerst wrote:

>  For the Archived-At header, defined in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt,
>  which is related to list headers but somewhat different because it
>  indicates per-message archival location, I took a forward-looking
>  approach and included this:
>
>  2.4.  Syntax Extension for Internationalized Message Headers
>
>     There are some efforts to allow non-ASCII text directly in message
>     header field bodies.  In such contexts, the URI non-terminal in the
>     syntax defined in Section 2.1 is to be replaced by an
>     Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) as defined in [RFC3987].
>     The specifics of the actual octet encoding of the IRI will follow the
>     rules for general direct encoding of non-ASCII text.  For conversion
>     between IRIs and URIs, the procedures defined in [RFC3987] are to be
>     applied.
>
>  My understanding is that this is enough for people to figure out
>  that with EAI, they can use IRIs (encoded in UTF-8) in the
>  Archived-At header(s) of EAI messages. If somebody thinks that's
>  not enough, and a revision of RFC 5064 is needed, please tell me.

I think it would be more clear if, instead of saying "The specifics 
of the actual octet encoding of the IRI will follow the rules for 
general direct encoding of non-ASCII text," it actually said UTF8. 
(For example, "The IRI is encoded in UTF8.")  However, I'm not sure 
this is worth a revision.  If you're going to revise it anyway, then 
add it.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
It has always seemed to me that the most difficult part of building
a bridge would be the start.                      --Robert Benchley
_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima