Re: [Tools-discuss] <contact/>: asciiFullname should be latinFullname

Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 07 October 2020 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997F23A0A8D for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Id-feCUzzmJL for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEFC53A0A8C for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C5z6Y0DPyz107l; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:39:49 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:39:48 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <>, Tools Team Discussion <>, RFC Interest <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 623777988.473967-705bab77927e56483e5235e094b41543
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] <contact/>: asciiFullname should be latinFullname
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 15:39:55 -0000

Hi Henrik,

I was trying to respond to Julian here.

> On 2020-10-07, at 17:01, Henrik Levkowetz <> wrote:
> As for what 7991 is really talking about, interpreting 'ASCII' as
> “accessible to a reader familiar with the Latin writing system”, rather
> than strictly ASCII, I'll leave that interpretation as yours.  That's not
> the understanding I got from 7991.

Me neither, in particular with the example in the companion 7997 that gave an ASCII-only “identifier” (cleverly avoiding the transliteration/transcription dilemma) for a Latin name.  However, it seems to me that it simply didn’t occur to the people involved in the process that led to RFC 799x that transliterations tend to use beyond-ASCII characters (or they considered pure-ASCIIness more important).

> I indicated earlier that I thought expanding the use use of Latin to
> the case you raised was reasonable, but it seems that response wasn't
> enough for you, so now I have no idea of how to respond.

No, I totally agree with your response.  I just tried to answer Julian’s question.

So we do need a bit of a variance here from RFC 7991.  We could do that the same way all the other variances have been handled (such as introducing the <contact/> element that didn't exist in RFC 7991 either).  Or we could somehow convince ourselves this is suddenly a major change (e.g., because the attributes are called “ascii”something they really should stay ASCII-only).  I don’t think it is, but if I could post to the rfc-interest list, I would love to hear whether people there agree, too.

Grüße, Carsten