Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 09 May 2011 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B24E068E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 22:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VqpR6UuNsSnT for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 22:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDA6E0669 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2011 22:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so4388749bwz.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 May 2011 22:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=kNdksvq/tGw1oPqfcbWvYAkfaHjdRaErFrwIEwkTggY=; b=Mk/pyn1VbOLcnE87cmRscJQH09dfUUqTODMG/38ZqWaLliMtAWYMNVd36OLMe87biX Ln9RIk/gf+Svw1GMTLGaQMju8DIL/t9xzCGfR5gFce3eNAXB1omUNwHCmqavoeUmfOlr hJHxClhyuAIyZ6B1Wvs6OY5zlsbB1AC+Vy4SE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; b=qhawzadX2EwKkF72Rz8PB4rkzDL5c1lqEkpYSb3kwvwlkxKvk+XapWmqyXTDhXlKzh AVZgEFSG/ETIQ3Gq9721noO7dgKJ8a7stALOw6sqwqwDSuh1kbmeq5QOaesytw2UAuzm WfQvmG/Ru4ioXyngRCQ37ZwPs8hWDqILqdqrY=
Received: by 10.204.19.20 with SMTP id y20mr1130585bka.170.1304917535039; Sun, 08 May 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u15sm3429529bkf.4.2011.05.08.22.05.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 08 May 2011 22:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DC77648.1040903@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 08:06:16 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20110506220130.29448.74168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110506220130.29448.74168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030909050405090300060702"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 05:05:39 -0000

Hello all,

We've recently adopted draft-hoffman-rfc3536bis as WG document.  I'd 
like to provide some comments on it.

 From Section 1.1, last paragraph:

>     This document uses definitions from many documents that have been
>     developed outside the IETF.  The primary documents used are:
>
>    [ ... ]
>
>     o  IETF RFCs, including the Character Set Policy specification
>        [RFC2277  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2277>]
This sounds a bit confusing, since the previous sentence says "outside 
the IETF" and the next one mentions IETF RFCs.  So I propose to change 
it as follows:

>      This document uses definitions from many documents, including those
>      developed outside the IETF.  Mostly, the following documents
>      were used:
>
>      [ as current draft ]

 From Section 2, "language" definition:

>     language
>
>        A language is a way that humans interact.  The use of language
>        occurs in many forms, the most common of which are speech,
>        writing, and signing.<NONE>
I think this definition is not correct.  "A way that humans interact" is 
too generalized.  I suppose the following definition would suit better here.

>     language
>
>        A language is a set of conventions on rules affecting humans'
>        speech.  The most common use of a language is speaking and
>        writing. <NONE>
>
>        [ as in current draft ]

Also "character" definition.  It would be useful to mention that 
"character" is often abbreviated to "char"

 From Section 4.1:
>     punctuation
>
>        Characters that separate units of text,  [ . . . ] they are also used in
>        mathematical and scientific formulae, for example.<UNICODE>
>
>     symbol
>
>        One of a set of characters  [ . . . ]
>
>        Examples of symbols include characters for mathematical operators,
>         [ . . . ]

I see these two definitions give a bit contiguous specification of where 
chars used in formula.  You should either clarify the use of punctuation 
marks in formula or consider such chars belonging to one of such category.

Also from Section 4.1:

>     control character
I think we can clarify a bit this definition by mentioning: "The 
semantics of control characters depend on the application they are used 
with.  The most common control characters semantics are specified in 
ISO/IEC 6429:1992 [ISO6429]" and adding the appropriate reference to ISO 
6429, like this: "ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 6429:1992. Information technology -- 
Control functions for coded character sets",1992."

Proposal for inclusion of definition in Section 8.  I think we could 
also define "noncharacter" here (and appropriate entry in the Index).  
My proposed definition:

>      noncharacter
>
>         A noncharacter is a code point that is permanently reserved
>         in some particular coded character set and is generally
>         forbidden to be used in open data interchange. <UNICODE>

Some comments on References:

>     [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
>                5.2.0", Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium,
This version - 5.2.0 - is obsolete.  It is superseded by 6.0.0; the 
reference should be: "The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, 
Version 6.0.0, (Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium, 2011. ISBN 
978-1-936213-01-6) <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/>"

>     [ISO3166]  ISO, "ISO 3166-1:2006 - Codes for the representation of
>                names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1:
>                Country codes", 20066.
I don't think they've invented time machine to write this in 20066 :-)  
Obviously, this is a typo: s/20066/2006

I also think the reference to [CHARMOD] is a bit incorrect as well.  I 
propose:

> Duerst, M., Ed., Yergeau, F., Ed., Ishida, R., Ed., Wolf, M., Ed. and 
> T. Texin, Ed., "Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0", W3C 
> Recommendation, February 2005. <http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/>
To finish, why the intended status for this draft is BCP?  Longstanding 
IETF practice is to publish glossaries as Informational docs 
(previously, FYIs); examples are http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1208, 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1983, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949 
and the predecessor of this draft itself - 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3536.  I think Informational would suit 
better here.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

07.05.2011 1:01, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title           : Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
> 	Author(s)       : Paul Hoffman
>                            John C Klensin