Subject: [hrpc] A question about UTF-8 in draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:32:25 +0200

Ins ection 5.3.2.1.5, there is an advice to protocol developers,
phrased as a question:

>   Question(s): Does your protocol have text strings that are readable
>   or entered by humans?  Does your protocol allow Unicode encoded in
>   UTF-8 only, thereby shifting conversion issues away from individual
>   choices?  Did you have a look at [RFC6365]?

It took me some time to be sure that "allowing Unicode in UTF-8 only"
was regarded as the best practice ("shifting away from individual
choices" seemed a fascist decision at first). Why not rewriting it:

Does your protocol have text strings that are readable or entered by
humans?  Does your protocol allow Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only,
thereby preventing any conversion issues?  If other character sets /
encodings are allowed, does your protocol mandates a proper tagging of
the charset? Did you have a look at [RFC6365]?

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:08:11 +1200

Agreed. Added.

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/19/2016 07:32 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>