Subject: FW: New Version Notification - draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8-05.txt

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:43:56 +0000

Please find the new version of the draft and let us know if you have more comments. 

Yours, 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:30 PM
To: [email-masked]; Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Subject: New Version Notification - draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8-05.txt

A new version (-05) has been submitted for draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8-05.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8/

Diff from previous version:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Ron Frederick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:14:32 -0800

Looks good here.

-- 
Ron Frederick
[email-masked]

---

From: Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:24:19 -0500 (EST)

> Please find the new version of the draft and let us know if you have

The line break inside "I/O" in the abstract looks a bit broken.

Other than that I see nothing wrong with it offhand - well, except for
the brokenness inherent in using UTF-8 at all, which strikes me as out
of scope for the draft.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		[email-masked]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

---

From: "denis bider \(Bitvise\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:00:58 -0600

What’s inherently broken in using UTF-8...?

From: Mouse 
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 20:24
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification - draft-sgtatham-secsh-iutf8-05.txt

/~\ The ASCII   Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:57:23 +0100

Hi,

Your are right about the line break, but I will leave that to the rfc
editor.

Yours,
Daniel

---

From: Mouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:38:38 -0500 (EST)

> What=E2=80=99s inherently broken in using UTF-8...?

Different characters occupy different amounts of space.

(Some) characters are larger than one addressing unit (most machines).

There are octet sequences which are not valid UTF-8 character
sequences.  This results in text tools that break on small amounts of
non-UTF-8 text mixed into the text they're handling.  (This is not
really a problem with UTF-8 proper - there are also octets that are not
valid 8859-1 text, for example - but a problem with how it's
implemented; in my experience UTF-8 text tools break when faced with
non-UTF-8 octet sequences, whereas single-octet text tools usually
don't break when faced with invalid octets.)

Some characters have multiple distinct encodings.  (Okay, that too is
not really UTF-8 proper - it's actually Unicode.)

I've seen it said (by the git documentation) that transcoding from some
character sets like 8859-1 to UTF-8 is not a reversible operation.
This seems dubious to me, but, if true, it would be another, and fairly
strong, strike against UTF-8 in my opinion.

That's just what come to mind immediately.  I don't use UTF-8 myself if
I can help it (when I run into something using it my major concern is
how to make it stop doing so), so it's entirely possible there are
others I'm just not aware of.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign