[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)
- To: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
- Subject: RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)
- From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:58:57 -0400
- Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:59:42 -0700
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
Let me put this another way:
The IETF has taken two identifiable actions WRT UTF-8:
1. It has designated UTF-8 as the preferred protocol for IDN in the BCP,
RFC 2277 (No matter whether used in a Standard or in a BCP, the word "MUST"
looks like strong language to me);
2. It has actually set a standard for (or has put on a standards track)
UTF-8 itself under RFC 2279.
I have not been able to find any actions by IETF WRT an ACE for IDN, either
as a stand-alone Standard in and of itself, or as a recommended protocol
(not to mention a "MUST") in a BCP.
So, apart from the fact that UTF-8 has much to recommend it technically for
use in IDNs, is it so surprising that the decision would be made to use
UTF-8 in the protocol when developing an implementation of IDN?
Bill Semich
.NU Domain
At 07:12 PM 8/26/00 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>At 18:20 26/08/00, J. William Semich wrote:
>
>>Semantics aside, if the IESG is applying these policies,
>
> There is no evidence to support a claim that IESG is requiring
>use of UTF-8 in all cases. The RFC does NOT say that its required
>in all cases, it makes a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
>Policies have exceptions, by definition. This is part of the
>reason it is a BCP, not a standard.
>
> UTF-8 is one choice. It might be a reasonable choice.
>It is not mandated by the IESG or IETF at this time for IDNs.
>Please support your use of UTF-8 on technical grounds (I'm sure
>you have these), rather than trying to twist the meaning of the
>RFC on UTF-8 and making some sort of political/policy argument.
>
>>then, as a
>>developer, these are the policies upon which I should base my code - one of
>>which is a "MUST" on support for UTF-8 in the protocol.
>
> You have more choices about how to base your code than you
>acknowledge above, while still being fully consistent with the
>RFC on UTF-8.
>
> I'll also echo Paul's comments. This is an IETF list.
>Please use IETF terminology regarding the status of IETF RFCs
>on IETF lists. That RFC is a BCP, not any sort of standard.
>Claiming otherwise repeatedly does not by itself change reality.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Ran
>rja@inet.org
>
>
>