RE: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode
Daniel Migault <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Thank you all for the comments and feed backs. As far as I understand, adding the two references ISO/IEC 10646:2014 with URL and RFC3629 in the current document reaches a consensus. ISO will be informative while RFC3929 will be normative. I also noted that for the future, there is a demand that RFC3929 be refreshed with at least new references for Unicode. But I do not think we should wait for that now. If that is fine with everyone, I believe the draft can be moved forward. Yours, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mouse Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 1:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode > We are looking at which reference to UTF8 we should mention into the > SSH UTF8 terminal mode. > [some Web URL] mentions that RFC3629 is slightly out of date and that > a reference to ISO/IEC 10646:2014 may also be useful. > Is anyone aware of any deficiencies in RFC3629 fixed in ISO/IEC > 10646:2014 ? > The question is whether we should have one reference or both in the > draft. Unless RFC 3629 has some deficiencies fixed in ISO/IEC > 10646:2014, I am incline to have only RFC3629. Is that something that > sounds reasonable to everyone ? My opinion - probably worth about what you paid for it - is that the RFC is a much better reference. This is for entirely non-technical reasons. The ISO believes pay-to-play is reasonable for standards, and, while 10646:2014 seems to be one they make an exception for, (a) getting it requires a _lot_ more hoop-jumping than an RFCs, (b) getting it requires agreeing to what for most of the world is foreign legal jurisdiction, (c) they say what you'd get is a "single-user, non-revisable Adobe Acrobat(r) PDF file", which means either it's DRMed or they're stupid enough to think no other PDF-handling software than Adobe's exists (I don't know which; between the jurisdictional issue, the difficulty of jumping through their hoops, and my lack of any real need for it, I haven't fetched it), and (d) their copyright terms are ridiculously onerous for something supposedly "freely available" - for example, you are prohibited from storing it on a filesystem that gets backed up, and you are permitted only one printed copy. > This Communication is Confidential. Then you might want to avoid sending it to a public, publicly archived, mailing list. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B