What’s an IETF discussion without a little pedanticism :) You’re right, I was casual in my terms.
From: "tb...@textuality.com" <tb...@textuality.com> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 1:15 PM To: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> Cc: "sec...@ietf.org" <sec...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding....@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding....@ietf.org>, "last-c...@ietf.org" <last-c...@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08 On Jul 9, 2024 at 10:07:44 AM, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: UTF8 is upward compatible with ASCII. That is, all seven-bit ASCII characters are valid UTF8 characters. I don’t want to be pedantic here (sigh, anything involving Unicode always becomes pedantic) but Rich, it wouldn’t actually be a good idea to require “UTF-8”. What you want to require is UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, and probably not all of them. PRECIS in RFC8264 provides a fully-thought-through subset of Unicode for identifiers. If that’s too complicated, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bray-unichars-09.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bray-unichars-09.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!UWWuj0bWf0Oig_1IQnMSRBhNtcEXdIBELfWbGKRSEHD5feWyojI62tpJZLIkJdVCQGuudPHmihfXXg$>, now under AD sponsorship by Orie, provides a much simpler but still useful subset.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
