Lisa Dusseault wrote:
If the IETF were to consider something like RFC1345 today, there would
be a lot of questions like
- whether a registry would be more appropriate than a static
document, after all it's a set of fields that might be extended,
- how one would determine whether any two implementations were
interoperable, or if that's a sensible concept in this context
- whether another standards organization wouldn't be a better place
for detailed char set mappings
For all I know those conversations occurred with RFC1345, but we'd
still have them again :)
I just feel like being blunt today:
RFC 1345 was a bad idea at the time. It was published without IETF
review, and contains errors, both in design and in details, that would
have been caught if people who could have done the review had been asked
to do so.
RFC 1345 is best ignored. If you want to name characters, use Unicode.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf