I was not approaching this discuss with this level of change in mind. How many years does it take to get a YANG model even one as simple as this completed?
Thanks, Chris. > On Feb 14, 2020, at 5:43 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alexey, Christian, > > Allowing Unicode but requiring normalization as per RFC 5198 for IANA managed > tags makes sense to me. > > But does the server also need to normalize any configured tags? I.e. should > the description for the tag typedef also specify that tags SHOULD be > normalized, and specify a normalization method that SHOULD be used? Or is > the onus on the client to use sensible (i.e. already normalized) values, and > if so, does that need to be stated? > > Thanks, > Rob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov >> Sent: 13 February 2020 13:10 >> To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]>; The IESG >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags- >> 07: (with DISCUSS) >> >> Hi Christian, >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 12:30 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: >>> 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. :) >> >> And the problem with that is that because there might be multiple ways to >> encode in Unicode visually indistinguishable tags IANA would end up asking >> IESG for help. >> >> So you need to at minimum specify a Unicode normalization form to use. I >> suggest you normatively reference RFC 5198 here. >> >>> Having worked for a company where a lot of XML string data was >>> non-ascii I find limiting to ascii to be rather restrictive. >> >> Best Regards, >> Alexey >> >>> >>> 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
