From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 06:34:18 CDT
In <Pine.BSI.3.91.1020522001545.12556A-100000@spsystems.net> Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> writes:
>+ Based on some discussions a while ago, at the end of 1.3, add:
> [We intend to submit a suitably-relabeled copy of Son of 1036 for
> publication as a Historic RFC, to ensure its permanent availability.
> At the request of its author, the submission is being postponed until
> after this standard is published as an RFC, to help ensure that there
> will be no confusion about which is the standard.]
Yes, I think we agreed that.
What I actually propose to write is
"It is anticipated that [Son-of-1036] will be republished as an
Historic RFC, in a suitably-relabelled form, following the
publication of this standard."
I think the proper procedure will be for Henry to submit it to the RFC
Editor at the proper time, but including introductory words to the effect
that he has been encouraged to re-publish it my the members of this WG.
>+ In 4.2.5.3, change "principle" to "principal". (The former means a
> guiding rule; the latter means "primary".)
Yup.
>+ In 5.5, the transition between the first and second paragraphs is very
> abrupt; at first, one wonders whether the second paragraph is misplaced,
> since it's suddenly talking about character-set standards, which seems
> like a more general topic. A sentence or two of preface would help.
OK, I have prefixed the 2nd paragraph with
"In order to allow newsgroup-names containing Non-ASCII characters,
this section relies heavily on the provisions of the Unicode standard.
All references to "Unicode" mean [UNICODE 3.1] or any ..."
Observe the removal of mention of "references to the latest version of the
Unicode Standard", since we did not, in fact, make any such references
anywhere.
>+ Finally, back in 1.3 again, please change the last two sentences to:
>
> That document formed the original basis for this standard, and parts
> of this standard's text are taken directly from it. Its author has
> endorsed this standard as its successor.
> ...or words to that effect.
OK, I have
That document formed the original basis for this standard and its
author has endorsed this standard as its successor. Much is taken
directly ...
>There are things that I would do differently from how 07 does them, but
>such changes and compromises would have happened anyway, in the process of
>going from a one-man first draft to an IETF standard. I find nothing that
>is deeply objectionable, and much that is quite good, in 07. It has my
>blessing as Son of Son of 1036. :-)
Thank you.
I think we are now agreed that the draft should go to IESG, and that any
further arguments should take place at that level. Naturally, all of us
have reservations about some particular detail, but the majority seem to
agree that it is time to get it out and move on.
I have now done a final re-read through the whole thing. I found a few
further typos and inconsistencies (mostly fallout from recent changes).
There are also a few items that have been raised in the last couple of
weeks. I plan to have a complete draft up on the Landifeld site early next
week and, subject to your final say, that is what will go to the IESG.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5