RE: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

Thank you all for the comments and feed backs. 

As far as I understand, adding the two references ISO/IEC 10646:2014 with URL and RFC3629 in the current document reaches a consensus. ISO will be informative while RFC3929 will be normative. 

I also noted that for the future, there is a demand that RFC3929 be refreshed with at least new references for Unicode. But I do not think we should wait for that now. 

If that is fine with everyone, I believe the draft can be moved forward. 

Yours,
 
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mouse
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 1:59 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode

> We are looking at which reference to UTF8 we should mention into the 
> SSH UTF8 terminal mode.

> [some Web URL] mentions that RFC3629 is slightly out of date and that 
> a reference to ISO/IEC 10646:2014 may also be useful.

> Is anyone aware of any deficiencies in RFC3629 fixed in ISO/IEC
> 10646:2014 ?

> The question is whether we should have one reference or both in the 
> draft.  Unless RFC 3629 has some deficiencies fixed in ISO/IEC 
> 10646:2014, I am incline to have only RFC3629. Is that something that 
> sounds reasonable to everyone ?

My opinion - probably worth about what you paid for it - is that the RFC is a much better reference.  This is for entirely non-technical reasons.

The ISO believes pay-to-play is reasonable for standards, and, while
10646:2014 seems to be one they make an exception for, (a) getting it requires a _lot_ more hoop-jumping than an RFCs, (b) getting it requires agreeing to what for most of the world is foreign legal jurisdiction, (c) they say what you'd get is a "single-user, non-revisable Adobe Acrobat(r) PDF file", which means either it's DRMed or they're stupid enough to think no other PDF-handling software than Adobe's exists (I don't know which; between the jurisdictional issue, the difficulty of jumping through their hoops, and my lack of any real need for it, I haven't fetched it), and (d) their copyright terms are ridiculously onerous for something supposedly "freely available" - for example, you are prohibited from storing it on a filesystem that gets backed up, and you are permitted only one printed copy.

> This Communication is Confidential.

Then you might want to avoid sending it to a public, publicly archived, mailing list.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		[e-mail]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B