RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 18:20 26/08/00, J. William Semich wrote:

>Semantics aside, if the IESG is applying these policies, 

        There is no evidence to support a claim that IESG is requiring
use of UTF-8 in all cases.  The RFC does NOT say that its required
in all cases, it makes a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
Policies have exceptions, by definition.  This is part of the
reason it is a BCP, not a standard.

        UTF-8 is one choice.  It might be a reasonable choice.
It is not mandated by the IESG or IETF at this time for IDNs.
Please support your use of UTF-8 on technical grounds (I'm sure
you have these), rather than trying to twist the meaning of the
RFC on UTF-8 and making some sort of political/policy argument.

>then, as a
>developer, these are the policies upon which I should base my code - one of
>which is a "MUST" on support for UTF-8 in the protocol. 

        You have more choices about how to base your code than you 
acknowledge above, while still being fully consistent with the
RFC on UTF-8.

        I'll also echo Paul's comments.  This is an IETF list.  
Please use IETF terminology regarding the status of IETF RFCs 
on IETF lists.  That RFC is a BCP, not any sort of standard.  
Claiming otherwise repeatedly does not by itself change reality.

Thank you,

Ran
rja@inet.org