What’s an IETF discussion without a little pedanticism :) You’re right, I was casual in my terms.
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 1:15 PM To: Rich Salz <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08 On Jul 9, 2024 at 10:07:44 AM, "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: UTF8 is upward compatible with ASCII. That is, all seven-bit ASCII characters are valid UTF8 characters. I don’t want to be pedantic here (sigh, anything involving Unicode always becomes pedantic) but Rich, it wouldn’t actually be a good idea to require “UTF-8”. What you want to require is UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, and probably not all of them. PRECIS in RFC8264 provides a fully-thought-through subset of Unicode for identifiers. If that’s too complicated, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bray-unichars-09.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bray-unichars-09.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!UWWuj0bWf0Oig_1IQnMSRBhNtcEXdIBELfWbGKRSEHD5feWyojI62tpJZLIkJdVCQGuudPHmihfXXg$>, now under AD sponsorship by Orie, provides a much simpler but still useful subset.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
