How about I add this to the description of "typedef tag" in the module:
description
"A tag is a type 'string' value that does not include carriage
return, newline or tab characters. It SHOULD begin with a
registered prefix; however, tags without a registered prefix
- SHOULD NOT be treated as invalid.";
+ SHOULD NOT be treated as invalid. For the purposes of comparison
+ non-ascii strings should use 'NFC' (RFC5198) normalization";
}
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Feb 14, 2020, at 6:06 AM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <[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
