[Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 3.5 to App. B

Doug Ewell wrote:

> One of the big objections that people had to switching
> to UTF-8 was that the non-ASCII characters might get
> munged in transit.  This passage was added specifically
> to calm those nerves.

I'm aware of these "people", you're talking about John
and me, and John cried "doom".  While I hate UTF-8 for
the registry I never doubted that IANA and reviewer will
figure it out.  IIRC John's "doom" was also about folks
discussing on a mailing list, and for that part I still
support it.  

Even Martin is sometimes annoyed with his own MUA, I hope
I finally convinced my W2K that nothing is wrong with his
encoding.

> People criticized the fact that 4646 didn't specify 
> where the completed forms could be found.

Yes, because IANA didn't collect and publish them.  You
fixed that, and I found the pages on their site without
looking into 4646bis.  IANA is free to reorganize their
Web site, and then old URIs in an RFC are a royal PIT*
(Just an example, I try to post on register@uri.arpa )

> We didn't want chains, but even more so, we didn't
> want to break the stability of the Preferred-Value
> field.

IOW we got it wrong, let's fix it while we're at it.
"Stability of Preferred-Value" makes no sense, the
X -> Z shortcut for X -> Y -> Z can't cause harm.

> Regarding cycles, I think if you want to rely on 
> IANA and the LSR to get things right rather than
> adding MUSTard, you surely ought to give them (or
> at least me, as Co-Designated Expert) credit for
> detecting and avoiding cycles.

But it was you who said that "un-drepecating" isn't
allowed.  Maybe you'd also say that adding Y -> X
to a given X -> Y is at is, because the X can't be
"un-drepecated".  For the hypothetical FX example
if we'd end up with FX deprecated in favour of FX
it's obvious, but longer cycles are harder to spot.

> This was added in direct response to fears expressed
> during LTRU 1.0 (which I did not share) that people
> would abuse private subtags.

He-who-must-not-be-named will do what he likes, it's
a waste of time to tell the world how it has to judge
such inventions.

> Addison and Mark (like me) are editors, not authors

You *insist* on being an editor, for Addison that's a 
bit fictitious, isn't it ?  Inventing countries isn't
what I consider as editorial freedom.  For 4646 we had
Randy's list of tracked issues with his decisions, but
that was his list, it's quite possible that I hit an
old issue because I forgot it / changed my mind / was
never happy with his decision / whatever.

> It's always fair to ask why something is there or how
> it got there, but the answer might well be "because 
> everyone insisted on it N months or years ago."

If I wanted X months ago, and now want "not X" without
saying that and why I changed my mind, it's sad, but
not intentionally bad, just point it out.  In cases 
such as "UTF-8 instead of NCRs" I want tons of "not X"
because the former X was designed to work with NCRs.

 Frank

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