Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 internationalization.

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, August 8, 2013, Noveck, David wrote:
>
> > Even recently the PRECIS WG was nearly making serious mistakes.
>
> But they didn't actually make them?  Sounds pretty good to me.


Right.


> > I think our experience qualifies as experience to learn from.
>
> I think so but I don't expect the rest of the IETF internationalization
> community to agree, at least for a while.


Rough consensus and running code.  We have running code with interop
requirememts that make anything beyond what i described highly undesirable.
 I will explain this as many ways and as long as i have to till it sinks in.



> > I think the IESG will surely understand.
>
> I believe you're unduly optimistic.


If so then we should get a head start on convincing the IESG.  I suppose
that means: a) submit an I-D, b) start a thread on [e-mail].


> >> The proposed approach is to base the new RFC3530bis handling of
> >> internationalization on the internationlization tretament in
> >> draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-04, the last draft for rfc3530 before it
> >> was stringprep-ized.  I feel that this is simple enough that we can
> >> clearly make the case, with the implementer's help, that this is what
> >> current servers and clients do and getting RFC3530bis approved.
>
> > I've not read that.  Please see my proposal above.
>
> When we have a new draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3050bis,incorporating the above,
> I'd ask you to read that and indicate any cases in which the things you
> think are reasonable (and have presumably implemented) are not at least
> ALLOWED by that new draft.  That draft will allow many things you think and
> I think are unreasonable, but our goal here is to allow all existing
> implementation behavior  so that Martin can confidently tell the IESG that
> rfc3530bis describes the actual implementations out there.
>

You don't sound so pessimistic after all.

Nico
--