Adam, thanks for confirming. Sabine, very well. The IESG can look at your suggested changes and proceed accordingly.
In the meantime, I think we should open up a thread in the ALTO WG (so we don't disturb the IESG further with this issue) and reach consensus how to proceed forward. I will do so later today. Thank you, all. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:30 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
