On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 13:01 -0400, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Here's something to think about that came up during today's IESG evaluation
of draft-ietf-sieve-variables. It might be worth talking about since the
doc needs some other edits before IESG approval.
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
While scanning drafts in Frankfurt airport, I noticed
that two of them (the iris and sieve drafts) refer in the
text to Unicode.
My understanding is that the IETF recommendation is to
use the ISO 10646 coded character set, and I thought there
were good reasons we specified that instead of Unicode.
What should we be looking for in RFCs?
Where is that recommendation?
RFC 2277 = BCP 18
which doesn't even mention Unicode. (Also see RFC 2130).
on the other hand, stringprep (RFC 3454) is quite explicit in that it is
based on Unicode 3.2, rather than "ISO 10646 with amendments". I
believe this is a more stringent choice, although I'm unsure if an
explicit reference to Unicode 3.2 is the right choice for miscellaneous
other documents.
I believe it would be very useful to define a stringprep profile for
Sieve. the profile may be defined for more general usage (comparators
too, others?), but something [SIEVE] can refer to would make things a
whole lot clearer. I don't suggest to make it mandatory for Sieve, but
*either* you support US-ASCII only (and use the identity mapping for
other code points) *or* you support the profile.
--
Kjetil T.