Revision of X.400 use of character sets

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald.t.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no> Wed, 17 March 1993 14:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02541; 17 Mar 93 9:39 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02537; 17 Mar 93 9:39 EST
Received: from mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08329; 17 Mar 93 9:39 EST
X400-Received: by mta mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; Relayed; Wed, 17 Mar 1993 08:26:53 +0000
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 08:26:53 +0000
X400-Originator: cargille@cs.wisc.edu
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; mhs-relay..953:17.02.93.14.26.53]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu ; Wed, 17 Mar 1993 08:26:52 +0000;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald.t.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no>
Message-ID: <"9721*/I=t/G=harald/S=alvestrand/OU=delab/O=sintef/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/"@MHS>
To: wg-msg <wg-msg@rare.nl>, ietf-osi-x400ops <ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: wg-char <wg-char@rare.nl>
Subject: Revision of X.400 use of character sets
Reply-To: wg-msg <wg-msg@rare.nl>

(I sent this some days ago, but got zero copies back (expected 3) and
zero reactions, so I'm resending it. Tell me if you got it several days
ago!)


Hi, all
I'll have to clear this document out of the "todo" file soon now.
The technical content hasn't changed for some time, and comments have
been next to nothing, except for the language/charset part, which has
generally had the comments:

- Very useful, and needed (from non-linguists)
- Limited, wrong and likely to generate tons of debate (from linguists)

This means (to me) that the paths of the two parts are likely to
be very different:

- The "X.400 usage" will stay stable (ignored?)
- The language part will change, often and dramatically.

Therefore, I would like the WG chairs, members and godfathers of both
the RARE WG and the IETF WG bodies to consider the solution:

- Split the document into 2 RFCs, one without languages, the other
  with only languages
- Publish the first as a Proposed Standard and RTR now
- Review the second a couple of more times, and publish it as an
  *informational* RFC, likely to be superseded later.

Comments?

Followup is set to the WG-MSG list only, because multilist debates are
a nuisance to people who are members of all of them.
Send a message to mailserver@rare.nl with the words

SUBSCRIBE wg-msg givenname surname

if you are not a member of WG-MSG and want to follow the debate (if any).

                        Harald Tveit Alvestrand