RE: [Syslog-sec] Sturctured Data & Unicode

["Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>]

David,

I mostly agree with you. I have updated the draft in your spirit. There
is one issue left - that is control characters in the structured data
names. I would like to make sure that only printable characters are used
for names. But what does printable mean in Unicode? As of my
understanding, stating something like "printable Unicode characters"
does not really make sense, as what printable is largely depends on the
installed character sets. Or should I simply outrule the US-ASCII
control character range - but this leaves e.g. Japanese width control
characters open...

I would appreciate any advise you can offer.

Many thanks for all of your great help! 

Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David B Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 5:35 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] Sturctured Data & Unicode
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you are suggesting what I think you are suggesting, I disagree with
> this approach.
> 
> What I hear you saying is, we will allow, say, a Japanese operator to
> express **values** in a Japanese langauge, but they need to learn a
> US-ASCII based language to read the **name** for the data point. This
> strikes me as being rather biased in favor of people that use
> languages that are US-ASCII based. It would be easier for that
> Japanese operator to be able to design their name-value pairs fully in
> Japanese, both name and value. 
> 
> I also don't see why such a restriction is necessary. There is no
> extra cost borne by US-ASCII language based users for allowing a
> Unicode format, since US-ASCII is a subset of Unicode and no extra
> bits on the wire are required for their US-ASCII name-value pairs when
> written in Unicode format.
> 
> If you want to ensure that IETF-STANDARD name-value pairs are
> understandable to the largest community, then requiring that IETF
> standards-track names be specified in US-ASCII, that would make some
> sense, but I think it probably should go further and require that the
> names be in English, just as it is a requirement that Internet-Drafts
> and RFCs be written in English. But this should NOT mean that the name
> field, if it can also contain names that are not standards-track,
> should be restricted to support only US-ASCII format.
> 
> I am also a bit concerned that requiring names to only support
> US-ASCII will lead implementors to only support US-ASCII for the
> values as well, and that would be unfair to a large, and growing,
> percentage of Internet users.
> 
> So I tend to disagree with the suggestion to limit the name to
> US-ASCII.
> 
> David Harrington
> dbharrington@comcast.net
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of Rainer
> Gerhards
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:47 AM
> To: syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: [Syslog-sec] Sturctured Data & Unicode
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> STRUCTURED-DATA is currently specified as All-Unicode. STRUCTURED-DATA
> consists of structured data elements. Each of them consists of a name
> and name-value pairs.
> 
> After going through some scenarios, I think we do NOT need to support
> full Unicode in the name tags. So I propose we allow Unicode only in
> the values and limit the name tags to US-ASCII. If nobody objects, I
> will edit the draft in this way.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec