Subject: [precis] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:04:24 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not my area of expertise, but ... :-)

Why isn't BCP18 an important reference?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:19:36 -0600

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/

Probably because, roughly speaking, BCP18 is to i18n as BCP61 is to 
security. Plus much of BCP18 has been superseded by RFCs 3629, 4646, 
5198, 6365, etc.

Peter

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:39:59 +0100

> security. Plus much of BCP18 has been superseded by RFCs 3629, 4646,

I like the idea of a BCP being superseded and still remaining as a BCP, that is probably not helpful even if 4646 got stabbed to death by 5646.

What you are saying, I think, is essentially that RFC 2277 is not applicable to the space of "Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols".

So is RFC 2277 wrong, deprecated, or still applicable as written? And, in the former two cases, is anyone doing anything about it?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:26:38 -0600

> So is RFC 2277 wrong, deprecated, or still applicable as written? And, in the former two cases, is anyone doing anything about it?

RFC 2277 was written long ago (1998) and far away, when very few people 
in the IETF paid attention to internationalization. As I see it, in 
large measure RFC 2277 was intended as a call to do so, and provided a 
few somewhat primitive guidelines regarding definitions (superseded by 
RFC 6365), "charsets" [sic] (superseded by RFC 3629 and RFC 5198), 
language tags (superseded by RFC 4646), etc. But I really don't see how 
those early suggestions have much to do with the advanced work we're 
doing on replacing stringprep. Heck, even the stringprep specification 
from 2002 (RFC 3545), which this I-D will supersede if it is approved, 
didn't reference RFC 2277.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:27:30 -0600

On 4/22/14, 10:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I like the idea of a BCP being superseded and still remaining as a
>> BCP, that is probably not helpful even if 4646 got stabbed to death by
>> 5646.
>>
>> What you are saying, I think, is essentially that RFC 2277 is not
>> applicable to the space of "Preparation and Comparison of
>> Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols".
>>
>> So is RFC 2277 wrong, deprecated, or still applicable as written? And,
>> in the former two cases, is anyone doing anything about it?
>

Er, RFC 3454, that is.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:16 -0600

>>> in the former two cases, is anyone doing anything about it?

Oh, and the datatracker says:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-rfc2277-bis/

Peter

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:27:52 -0400

Yes, the IAB's i18n program is working on this.  Comments are solicited, BTW.

A

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:30:16AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> precis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]