Just to add ... another checkpoint would be codepoint allocation. Thanks, Ketan
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:26 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
