Opened 11 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

#127 closed enhancement (fixed)

protocol identifiers

Reported by: marc.blanchet@… Owned by: bernard_aboba@…
Priority: major Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-extension-recs Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:


I think section 4.3 is under-specified. There are a lot of considerations regarding extensibility of protocols when strings and identifiers are involved. While I'm not sure we really want to go into too much details of internationalizing strings, it seems that we should at least add text and refer to documents. 4.3 talks about encoding. I think there is a larger problem space and design considerations for extensions with protocol identifiers.

Suggesting text (please mangle as you which):
<new section title="Identifiers">
Protocol identifiers are often key entries into protocol objects, therefore essential in thinking about extensibility. How identifiers are coded have key impact on extensibility of the protocol. String valid code points, encoding, normalization and comparison are to be taken into account. See [draft-iab-identifier-comparison, draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement, draft-ietf-precis-framework].

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by bernard_aboba@…

The modified paragraph reads as follows:

As described in "IAB Thoughts on Encodings for International Domain
Names" [RFC6055], the number of encodings should be
minimized and complex encodings are generally a bad idea. As soon as
one moves outside the ASCII repertoire, issues relating to collation,
string valid code points, encoding, normalization and comparison
arise that extensions must handle with care.
See [draft-iab-identifier-comparison], [draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement]
and [draft-ietf-precis-framework].

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by bernard_aboba@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.