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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 07 October 2020 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997F23A0A8D for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Id-feCUzzmJL for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEFC53A0A8C for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (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 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b019f3e8-b14f-a785-a630-494fee380c38@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:39:48 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 623777988.473967-705bab77927e56483e5235e094b41543
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <649F6D05-2AC2-481A-B858-6E158DCF74F8@tzi.org>
References: <E01F5548-0729-4B27-98F2-CA7C19C37CF1@tzi.org> <632bd17a-0989-6fa9-4147-e54c00a657f2@levkowetz.com> <85fa7fbd-ffc1-b8c6-ddaf-c48119b530b1@gmx.de> <99A6F972-B807-4464-B4BD-F9B8E50C311A@tzi.org> <b019f3e8-b14f-a785-a630-494fee380c38@levkowetz.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/K0tdl22a3doGnVkoq7vLNrFLIV0>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] <contact/>: asciiFullname should be latinFullname
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <henrik@levkowetz.com> 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