IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 02 February 2010 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C5F28C250 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:27:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ENt4fJb5pKQr for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C08F28C259 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.159]) by scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id o12AS2Jc014531 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:28:02 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3064_a4401a30_0fe5_11df_93fb_001d096c5782; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:28:02 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:48482) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S12E625F> for <hybi@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:28:02 +0900
Message-ID: <4B67FE17.8060100@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:27:35 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090902 Eudora/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <9124e09b0911052218y5106a2d4qcda01ff67577679b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032337580.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B1905FC.1000205@verizon.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001300901270.22027@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B6466EB.2090909@gmx.de> <4B656465.1080005@airemix.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100201163955.09373f40@resistor.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020055080.21600@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020055080.21600@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:27:26 -0000

Hello Ian,

On 2010/02/02 9:56, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, SM wrote:
>> At 16:30 01-02-10, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> I used "ANSI_X3.4-1968" because that's the canonical name for US-ASCII,
>>> and I used RFC1345 because that's the canonical reference. If you disagree
>>> with these choices, please update the IANA registry.
>>
>> Julian Reschke is correct; RFC 1345 should not be used as a normative
>> reference.  Please use the reference that he suggested
>> ([ANSI.X3-4.1986]).
>
> Again, I'm just using what the IANA uses. If the IANA's reference is out
> of date, then please update the IANA registry.

As I wrote in another mail, it's a historical reference (how did this 
end up here).

> I've no intention of
> playing reference hot potato, where every 3 months the "best reference"
> changes and I have to update all the references.

Not wanting to play reference hot potato is no good reason for choosing 
the worst possible reference in this case. US-ASCII, and the references 
for it, don't change that often these days, either.

Not wanting to play reference hot potato is also no good reason for not 
following the clear an unanimous advice of (if I'm counting correctly) 3 
(and now 4 with me) people on the mailing list.

If somebody requests the reference to be changed from ANSI.X3-4.1986 to 
ISO 646 IRV or back, then that would be the place to bring up the "hot 
potato" metaphor.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email