rfc3987bis and RFC 6365

<hat type='individual'/>

At IETF 84, we discussed the desirability of aligning the terminology in
3987bis with RFC 6365 ("Terminology Used in Internationalization in the
IETF"). This is ticket #85 in the tracker:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/85

I've completed a review of both documents and have a few suggestions...

1. In Section 1.3, cite RFC 6365 and specify that terms are to be
understood as defined in that document unless otherwise specified (in
fact, now that we have RFC 6365 it's not clear why we're citing RFC
2130, RFC 2277, or ISO 10646). I suggest:

OLD
   The following definitions are used in this document; they follow the
   terms in [RFC2130], [RFC2277], and [ISO10646].

NEW
   Various terms used in this document are defined in [RFC6365] and
   [RFC3986].  In addition, we define the following terms for use in
   this document.

2. Don't define anew in rfc3987bis terms that are defined in RFC 6365.
That would mean removing the following definitions from Section 1.3:

- character
- character repertoire
- character encoding (use "character encoding scheme" or "character
encodiring form" instead)
- charset

3. Do we really need to define "octet", "sequence of characters", and
"sequence of octets"?

4. Strangely, RFC 6365 does not define "UCS", so I suppose it's OK to
define that here.

5.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:42:51 UTC