Actually, I tend to agree to Anton, that it is not a complicated matter now. However, we have still a good number of issues open in -protocol. Basically, protocol includes everything that is needed to support international messages, but there may be some additional things be required so that everyone is satisfied (I am not saything this is the case, I am just speculating!).
I have specifically not mentioned punnycode because I don't like the idea to build on this still highly political topic. I've just said "valid DNS name" and I think that should cover punnycode. The length field - out of my mind - was a max of 255 chars, which will probably first cause DNS protocol issues than syslog. So - in short - I'd like to finish -protocol WITHOUT looking too much at internationalization. Once this is done, we could re-evaluate and see if we need to address some specifics and - if so - we could do this in -international. I think there are great chances -international will NOT be needed. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:09 AM > To: Anton Okmianski > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Meeting Today > > Hi Anton, > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Anton Okmianski wrote: > > > Chris, Rainer: > > > > Your presentation references syslog-international as future > work. Does > > this still hold true? > > Not since the meeting was held. We've been exploring the idea of > separating syslog-protocol and syslog-transport from > syslog-sign. I asked > (several months ago) for us to look closely at that and > decide if this was > a good way to go at IETF 59. The group in the room had no > objection to > this procedure and it appears on the mailing list as if everyone is in > agreement. At this point, I can say that our official plan > is to progress > syslog-protocol and syslog-transport. Once those are sufficiently > underway, Jon can take a look at syslog-sign and modify as > necessary. We > can also look closely at syslog-internation along the way and > see if it > can be incorporated into syslog-protocol. > > Thanks, > Chris > > > > > > I thought by specifying Unicode and UTF8 we will already handle > > internationalization in syslog-protocol. The only current > exceptions I > > can think of are maybe support for Unicode in structured > elements (which > > is easy to allow) and international DNS names which we did not > > explicitly mention in -protocol. > > > > If these are the only things left for internationalization > of -protocol, > > then maybe we should just include it -protocol. This should > not expand > > it by more than 1-5 paragraphs, and if it saves us from > doing a whole > > separate ID, I think it is worth it. We can either support the > > "punnycode" (ASCII encoding of Unicode DNS names used in > DNS) or allow > > Unicode UTF8 in HOSTNAME. > > > > For punnycode details see RFCs 3490, 3491, 3492 and 3454. > But I am not > > clear we should support punnycode. This is something that > DNS supports > > in order to be able to re-use existing DNS server/client > implementations > > which don't support Unicode. I think it would be a good idea to just > > stick to Unicode and insure we meet the length requirements of > > international DNS names (I don't know what they are but can > find out). > > > > > > Are there other areas of internationalization for -protocol? > > > > Thanks, > > Anton. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:08 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Meeting Today > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > I've updated our Agenda for today's meeting. > > > > > http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/Seoul_agenda/agenda.html > > > > This contains all of the presentations and our overall purpose for > > meeting at this IETF. I don't mean to hog the microphone > but I'll be > > giving the presentations for Jon, Rainer and Anton. > > > > I'm still looking for a scribe and jabberer. Please send > me email to > > let me know if you can do either. Also, we're in > Gardenia-A2. That's > > the room next to the Terminal Room and is easy to miss. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > > > >
