For the record this one is 3 years and counting. For a list of tags. > On Feb 14, 2020, at 6:01 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > 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) <rwil...@cisco.com> 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 <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov >>> Sent: 13 February 2020 13:10 >>> To: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> >>> Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org; Joel Jaeggli <joe...@gmail.com>; The IESG >>> <i...@ietf.org>; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-module-t...@ietf.org >>> 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 >>> <nore...@ietf.org> 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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
