Hi Chris,

I think that would be okay, although perhaps using SHOULD rather than "should" 
might be better, given that SHOULD NOT is used elsewhere in the description.

Thanks,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>
> Sent: 14 February 2020 11:21
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Alexey Melnikov
> <aamelni...@fastmail.fm>; 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)
> 
> 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 <cho...@chopps.org> 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 <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

Reply via email to