Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt> (Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF) to BCP

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:04:00 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF'
  <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when
   discussing internationalization.  The purpose is to help frame
   discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF
   and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:21:30 +0300

Hello all,

I have an only concern with regard to this document which I expressed 
before, during WG discussions, and which I'd like to bring to IESG's 
attention now.

For a number of times I proposed improving the "control character" 
definition in Section 4.1:

>     control character
>
>        The 65 characters in the ranges U+0000..U+001F and U+007F..U+009F.
>        The basic space character, U+0020, is often considered as a
>        control character as well, making the total number 66.  They are
>        also known as control codes.  In terminology adopted by Unicode
>        from ASCII and the ISO 8859 standards, these codes are treated as
>        belonging to three ranges: "C0" (for U+0000..U+001F), "C1" (for
>        U+0080...U+009F), and the single control character "DEL" (U+007F).
>        <UNICODE>
My proposals included 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02558.html 
and 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02589.html.  The 
main justification I provided is that, in accordance with Abstract: 
"This document provides a glossary of terms [...]" so we need to specify 
"what does the control character mean" but not "what Unicode codepoints 
are assigned for control characters".  Yet, on the apps-discuss mailing 
list there were some concerns regarding the fact that control characters 
are unfamiliar to internalization so my proposed definition is not an 
option (one of the authors shares this opinion).  Thus, why does it 
occur in its current form?  So, there are two possible variants, I 
think: (1) remove the "control character" definition from the document 
as irrelevant to internalization or (2) produce a really good definition 
of this term (consider we're trying to give the terms normative meaning 
within IETF, since the intended status is BCP).  I didn't manage to 
persuade the authors or WG to undertake any of the aforementioned 
options and I hope IESG should decide on this.

Also, as a minor remark on references.  The document makes normative 
reference to an obsolete document - ISO/IEC 10646:2003 whereas ISO/IEC 
10646:2011 is published.  The reference should be corrected.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

16.06.2011 16:04, The IESG wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:41:13 -0400

> definition in Section 4.1:

And in the WG discussions, Mykyta was in the rough when it came to a
consensus judgment.  I, as chair and doc shepherd, actually supported
some change initially, but was convinced that the final text that's in
the document is best.  The document isn't meant to be a history
lesson, but to make it clear what certain terms refer to.  The current
"control character" text accomplishes that, and there's been no
support for Mykyta's suggested change.

Barry, appsawg chair

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:55:23 +0200

On 17 June 2011 05:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> I proposed improving the "control character" definition

Let's keep it simple.  ECMA 48 5th edition claims that its
4th edition corresponds to ISO 6429:1992, and that there
should be a new ISO 6429 based on ECMA 48 5th ed.

If that actually happened your proposal to add a non-free
ISO 6429:1992 reference could be arguably obsolete.

The control codes only mean something in the context
of specifications using it, e.g., TUS doesn't use most of
the C0 or C1 control codes (adding its own oddities).

Wrt i18n ECMA 48 5th ed. could be even interesting, it
covers BiDi.   But I'd never trust in any BiDi spec. unless
it was written by one of the usual suspects (Martin, John,
Harald, Paul, etc.)

> we're trying to give the terms normative meaning within
> IETF, since the intended status is BCP

The business with the C0 + C1 terminology is IMO correct
in the draft, and explaining what if anything specifc control
codes do is out of scope.   The "net UTF-8" BCP obsoletes
most of these codes, and the i18n terminology draft has a
pointer to the "net UTF-8 BCP" (IIRC).

 > The document makes normative reference to an obsolete
> document - ISO/IEC 10646:2003 whereas ISO/IEC

Above all it should be the ISO 10646 version corresponding
to the referenced TUS version, if you checked that I'd agree.

-Frank

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:21:09 +0300

> it was written by one of the usual suspects (Martin, John,
My first proposal was to include reference to ISO 6429; yet, it isn't 
mandatory.  Let's produce a simple definition of what is the control 
character used for.  It may be taken from ISO/IEC 10646 as well.  I 
don't think the current text reflects this.
> codes do is out of scope.
See above.  Let's not explain what do they mean, but rather what are 
their overall mission.  That's my point.

Mykyta
> The "net UTF-8" BCP obsoletes