ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Code point reservation BCP

2015-09-21 08:35:17
Tom,

Thanks for the feedback.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:55:07PM +0100, t.p. wrote:
I would prefer 'first' to 'zeroth' - I find the latter somewhat
obscure - and I would prefer the title to be more specific,

The intention is to strongly imply "code point zero".  While we don't have
many things that start counting from one (BITS in SMIv2 being a counter
example, iirc.) the intention is definitley not to reserve the first thing
if it's non-zero.  

This probably shows a bit of prejudice to C and similar language constructs,
but there you have it.

slotting in
the word 'numeric' after IETF (or should that be IANA?) since textual
registries can be ordered and have a first and last but the
considerations here would not apply.

I'll look at wedging in numeric somewhere in there.  The name is already
getting to be a bit long.

IANA was specifically not included in the text since some code point
registries may exist solely within a document for some length of its
lifetime.  I was also suggested to consider dropping "IETF" since the
practice is still useful outside of IETF documents, but other SDOs get
cranky if you start recommending what they should do. :-)

-- Jeff

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>