And yes, we need to redo the WG and IETF last calls, see (1). The draft has been substantially updated, and once the text related to RFC8259 will be integrated, the only thing pending will be parsing the JSON examples and updating the ipv6 addresses.
(1) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/?qdr=y From: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 12:10 PM To: Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Status of cost-calendar Hi Vijay, Thanks for the clarification. I will then just cite RFC 8259 in the intro and 3.1. Maybe the “operational considerations” section can include a paragraph saying that implementations using UTF-{16,32} need to be cognizant of both the 8259 evolution that mandates UTF-8, essentially for interoperability reasons. Therefore it is recommended for them to switch to UTF-8 encoding. Thanks, Sabine From: Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 7:31 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Status of cost-calendar Sabine, Based on my posting on the mailing list [1], it does not appear that ALTO or any of its extensions are intimately tied to UTF-{16,32}. As such, please reference the new JSON RFC 8259 in the Introduction to the cost-calendar draft and please move it ahead as soon as possible after incorporating other comments from IESG review. I have forgotten whether we have to redo the WG and IETF last calls. Can you please provide the status of the draft with respect to IETF last call and whether we need to do a WGLC again. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/EGuPfDqoYBv7H8grPXE0qtjQsGc Thank you.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
