The intent in the document is to place as few restrictions on tags as possible to allow for future-proofing and organic growth of use both within and outside of SDOs. For standard tags we trust IANA (and the human behind the process) to make the call on whether a tag is already present. :)
Having worked for a company where a lot of XML string data was non-ascii I find limiting to ascii to be rather restrictive. Thanks, Chris. > On Apr 11, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is generally a fine document, but after checking RFC 7950 syntax for > strings I question why you think you need non ASCII tags. There are so many > problems that can arise from that. For example, how would IANA be able to > enforce uniqueness of Unicode tags written in different Unicode > canonicalisation forms? > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
