Hi Dhruv/Adrian, As someone who was involved in this debate recently with the IESG, I would like to share my input on this topic.
I am in favor of internationalization. From an implementor's perspective, the key is that we bring this early in the document lifecycle - ideally WG adoption or whenever a new TLV is introduced. Making changes later once we have implementations shipping/deployed can be problematic - especially for "on-the-wire" parts. I would urge caution in changing these things "late" in the document cycle. Thanks, Ketan On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:05 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > A quick glance in all our RFC and WG I-Ds, there are not many strings in > PCEP, I found - > > Strings in PCEP > > This page documents all the strings in the published RFCs as well as WG > documents. The aim is to further decide if they need to be converted to > UTF-8 to allow Internationalisation > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/i18ndir/about/> > DocumentObject/TLVFormatRemarks > RFC8231 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231> SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME > TLV printable ASCII > draft-ietf-pce-vn-association > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/> > VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV printable ASCII > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/> > SRPOLICY-POL-NAME > TLV, SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV printable ASCII This needs to be as per > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/> > > > Maintained at - https://notes.ietf.org/strings-in-pcep?view ; feel free > to add if I missed something! > > Regards, > Dhruv > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:48 AM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Dhruv, >> >> >> >> I agree: this is a wider issue than just this draft. And I think it was >> discussed way back for some early part of the PCEP work, but I really can’t >> recall how or what the conclusions were. >> >> >> >> The IETF has a Directorate for Internationalisation ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/i18ndir/about/) and they should be >> able to help. Once upon a time I would have said, “Let’s meet up with a >> couple of them over coffee at the IETF and see if we can understand the >> problem space and scope. But we have a new normal, so probably the thing to >> do is ask the Directorate if they could supply one or two people to work >> with us on this and then set up a call after the IETF and after we have all >> got over the zoom-lag. >> >> >> >> At the moment I don’t even know what questions we should be asking each >> other! >> >> >> >> A first step might be to collect all of the free-form text strings >> currently in PCEP and list out how they are used. Then we can have a >> starting point for a conversation. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Adrian >> >> >> >> *From:* Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 17 March 2022 05:20 >> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; pce-chairs < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* ASCII in PCEP (WAS - Re: [Pce] WGLC for >> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05) >> >> >> >> Hi Adrian, WG, >> >> >> >> Just one point and starting a new thread -> >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. >> >> >> >> How does internationalization work for the Virtual Network Name? >> >> Why is ASCII acceptable? >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> >> >> In the past, we had limited to ASCII, see SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV (RFC >> 8231). >> >> >> >> I see a recent discussion (but not sure if it is resolved yet) for the >> spring SR policy draft related to the same topic - >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/ballot/ >> (search for ASCII) >> >> >> >> I think it is wise for PCE WG to think more about this - >> >> - Do we continue to use ASCII only >> >> - Do we define strings as UTF-8 from now on and leave the old ones as >> ASCII >> >> - Do we make sure older names can be encoded in UTF-8 by defining a new >> TLV or some other technique? >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dhruv >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Pce <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody >> *Sent:* 22 February 2022 12:18 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Cc:* [email protected]; pce-chairs < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 >> >> >> >> Hi WG, >> >> This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for >> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 [1 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/>] to >> accommodate the upcoming draft submission deadline. >> >> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are >> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your >> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest >> version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review >> comments and nits are most welcome. >> >> The WG LC will end on Tuesday 15th March 2022. >> >> A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the >> last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :) >> >> Thanks, >> Dhruv & Julien >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/ >> >> _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
