[Tsvwg] Fw: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 08 May 2008 15:16 UTC
Return-Path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tsvwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7317A28DD85; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CBB28D75E for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kpe8BB1KKIZ9 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6388B28C3B7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2008 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m48F36Q5031873; Thu, 8 May 2008 16:03:06 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m48F35mH031845; Thu, 8 May 2008 16:03:06 +0100
Message-ID: <005d01c8b11c$97f7f6f0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 16:02:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, chris.newman@sun.com
Subject: [Tsvwg] Fw: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, Does anyone have any opinions on this Discuss? Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Newman" <chris.newman@sun.com> To: <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: <tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec@tools.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:44 PM Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec > Discuss: > The IETF has a policy on character sets and languages (BCP #18, RFC > 2277) that I believe would apply to this protocol. If you believe BCP 18 > / RFC 2277 does not apply, you need to make the argument why and > preferably do so in the document. > > While I applaud the realization that numeric codes alone are not > sufficient for debugging real-world product interactions, moving to the > richer solution (pairing numeric codes with freeform text and perhaps > parameters) comes with issues. Do you allow multi-line text as is > useful if the error relates to a multi-line element or is complex to > explain clearly? Do you allow text in the native language of the > admins/operators? Do you tag the text with a language? > > In the SMTP world, we do get complaints about the English-only nature of > the protocol-level error text, and with Spam making it more important to > generate protocol-level errors instead of DSNs, these complaints will > only increase over time. I expect we'll have to retro-fit language > support at some point and it will be painful (yes, there is a draft on > this floating around). > > My advise would be: > > 1. Allow for UTF-8/Net-Unicode (RFC 5198) so you never have to retro-fit > it, but encourage implementations to stick to single-line printable > US-ASCII whenever feasible. > > 2. Provide a way to tag the error with a language tag (BCP 47, RFC > 4646). I can be talked out of this one as there is a complexity > tradeoff here, but it will be painful to retro-fit if you ever need it > later so do consider this seriously. > > 3. Suggest logging systems that are not UTF-8 capable or systems to > display the errors that are not UTF-8 capable encode according to RFC > 5137 / BCP 137. Note that this also addresses the security > considerations that were raised by others. > > Thankfully, the RFCs I mention cover most of the nasty issues (including > security ones) so this can be done primarily by reference. > > >
- [Tsvwg] Fw: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-e… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Tsvwg] Fw: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-us… Magnus Westerlund