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 <[email protected]> > Sent: 14 February 2020 11:21 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; Alexey Melnikov > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Joel Jaeggli > <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; draft-ietf- > [email protected] > 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 <[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
