Subject: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:34:48 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:21 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04
> 
> Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> 
> > Acceptable isn't the right word.  "Not preventable" is a better way 
> > to put it.  That's why the text doesn't come right out and say that
> > implementations MUST use UTF-8, while it does use RECOMMENDED, 
> > SHOULD, etc.  In a broad, XML sense you're correct that other 
> > encodings are possible.  The WG decided that more restrictive 
> > guidance was appropriate.
> 
> Such guidance might well be appropriate (and I would not have any
> problems with mandating UTF-8), but as it's currently written, the 
> document is internally inconsistent.
> 
> It can't simultaneously say that (1) document is valid XML and may
> use UTF-16 and other encodings, and (2) some text in the document 
> is always encoded with UTF-8.

If I understand what you're saying I believe you're applying the general
guidance from 3730bis to the more specific application that's described
in 3733bis.  The core EPP spec (3730bis) describes a framework.  The
3733bis mapping is a specific instance of something that uses that
mapping.  While in general it's possible to implement EPP with an
encoding other than UTF-8, the specific mapping described in 3733bis is
more restrictive.  3733bis does not suggest that anything other than
UTF-8 is acceptable for use with a 3733bis implementation, though it
does acknowledge XML reality in section 5.  If you're uncomfortable with
my attempt to make this distinction I could really use an example of
text that you think makes things clear.

-Scott-

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:08:47 +0200

Scott Hollenbeck:

> If I understand what you're saying I believe you're applying the
> general guidance from 3730bis to the more specific application
> that's described in 3733bis.  The core EPP spec (3730bis) describes
> a framework.  The 3733bis mapping is a specific instance of
> something that uses that mapping.  While in general it's possible to
> implement EPP with an encoding other than UTF-8, the specific
> mapping described in 3733bis is more restrictive.  3733bis does not
> suggest that anything other than UTF-8 is acceptable for use with a
> 3733bis implementation, though it does acknowledge XML reality in
> section 5.  If you're uncomfortable with my attempt to make this
> distinction I could really use an example of text that you think
> makes things clear.

How about replacing this (in Section 5):

   "[...] use of UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED in environments where parser
   encoding support incompatibility exists."

with

   "[...] use of UTF-8 is REQUIRED with this specification."

(Because RFC2119 "RECOMMENDED" clearly means other alternatives 
are acceptable.)

Best regards,
Pasi