Re: [Pce] ASCII in PCEP (WAS - Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

A quick glance in all our RFC and WG I-Ds, there are not many strings in
PCEP, I found -

Strings in PCEP

This page documents all the strings in the published RFCs as well as WG
documents. The aim is to further decide if they need to be converted to
UTF-8 to allow Internationalisation
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/i18ndir/about/>
DocumentObject/TLVFormatRemarks
RFC8231 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231> SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME
TLV printable ASCII
draft-ietf-pce-vn-association
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/>
VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV printable ASCII
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/>
SRPOLICY-POL-NAME
TLV, SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV printable ASCII This needs to be as per
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/>


Maintained at - https://notes.ietf.org/strings-in-pcep?view ; feel free to
add if I missed something!

Regards,
Dhruv

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:48 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> I agree: this is a wider issue than just this draft. And I think it was
> discussed way back for some early part of the PCEP work, but I really can’t
> recall how or what the conclusions were.
>
>
>
> The IETF has a Directorate for Internationalisation (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/i18ndir/about/) and they should be
> able to help. Once upon a time I would have said, “Let’s meet up with a
> couple of them over coffee at the IETF and see if we can understand the
> problem space and scope. But we have a new normal, so probably the thing to
> do is ask the Directorate if they could supply one or two people to work
> with us on this and then set up a call after the IETF and after we have all
> got over the zoom-lag.
>
>
>
> At the moment I don’t even know what questions we should be asking each
> other!
>
>
>
> A first step might be to collect all of the free-form text strings
> currently in PCEP and list out how they are used. Then we can have a
> starting point for a conversation.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 17 March 2022 05:20
> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; pce-chairs <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* ASCII in PCEP (WAS - Re: [Pce] WGLC for
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05)
>
>
>
> Hi Adrian, WG,
>
>
>
> Just one point and starting a new thread ->
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.
>
>
>
> How does internationalization work for the Virtual Network Name?
>
> Why is ASCII acceptable?
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
> In the past, we had limited to ASCII, see SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV (RFC
> 8231).
>
>
>
> I see a recent discussion (but not sure if it is resolved yet) for the
> spring SR policy draft related to the same topic -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/ballot/
> (search for ASCII)
>
>
>
> I think it is wise for PCE WG to think more about this -
>
> - Do we continue to use ASCII only
>
> - Do we define strings as UTF-8 from now on and leave the old ones as
> ASCII
>
> - Do we make sure older names can be encoded in UTF-8 by defining a new
> TLV or some other technique?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody
> *Sent:* 22 February 2022 12:18
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; pce-chairs <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 [1
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/>] to
> accommodate the upcoming draft submission deadline.
>
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
> to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
> you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and
> it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and
> nits are most welcome.
>
> The WG LC will end on Tuesday 15th March 2022.
>
> A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the
> last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :)
>
> Thanks,
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/
>
>