Hello,
I would personally opt for a Clarification draft for implementing RFC 7285 with
RFC 8259.
Before we get there, the calendar specification may pave the way by making the
use of UTF-8 to encode text sent by Calendar-aware Clients and Servers a MUST,
rather than a SHOULD as the proposed text in my previous e-mail suggested.
Please see below the new text proposed for the backwards compatibility section.
The MUST rule on UTF8 encoding will be distributed in the spec sections.
We may add this to the operation considerations as well, and mention the
possibility of a future clarification on RFC 7285 to make compliance with RFC
8259 mandatory.
Thanks,
Sabine
<t>Last, for backwards compatibility with <xref target="RFC7285"/>,
this extension encodes its requests and responses using the JSON
Data Interchange Format specified in <xref target="RFC7159"/>.
The latter has been obsoleted by <xref target="RFC8259"/>,
that among others makes UTF-8 mandatory for text encoding to
improve interoperability. Therefore, Clients and Servers supporting
ALTO Calendars MUST use UTF-8 for text encoding while still being
able to
successfully read texts in other encodings such as UTF-16 and
UTF-32.</t>
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:38 AM
To: Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]>; Kai GAO <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]>; The IESG
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)
On 1/30/19 4:26 PM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> Do I get the sense that the WG thinks that this is the best course of
> action? (I must apologize as I am coming up to speed on this issue.
> If I was to produce a 1 sentence summary of the issue here, it is that
> RFC 8259 normatively requires UTF-8 encoding and that there are
> existing ALTO implementations conformant to RFC 7285 that use
> encodings other than UTF-8. Is that accurate?).
That's my understanding, modulo any other JSON changes you might want to
highlight. Again, I think RFC 7647 provides a good example of how this kind of
thing can be clarified.
/a
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
