Subject: [Simple] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:03:48 -0700

FYI, as promised.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:00:12 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : Preparation and Comparison of Nicknames
	Author(s)       : Peter Saint-Andre
	Filename        : draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2012-03-05

   This document describes how to prepare and compare Unicode strings
   representing nicknames, primarily as used within textual chatrooms.
   This profile is intended to be used by chatroom technologies based on
   both the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) and the
   Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00.txt

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:16:18 -0600

Excellent! Thanks, Peter!

Miguel, Geir Arne, and everyone else following this issue in SIMPLE: Does this draft meet our needs for simple-chat?

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:18:18 -0700

> Miguel, Geir Arne, and everyone else following this issue in SIMPLE: Does this draft meet our needs for simple-chat?

This is a first pass. IMHO it could be augmented with more details about
the avoidance of confusable characters, but that's quite a bit more work
and we need to figure out if the benefits are worth the cost.

Peter

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:21:53 -0600

On Mar 5, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> This is a first pass.

Of course--I should adjust my question to say "is this on the right track to meet our needs for simple-chat?" :-)

> IMHO it could be augmented with more details about

Agreed, and whether that decision is necessarily the same for MSRP as for XMPP.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:25:32 -0700

> Of course--I should adjust my question to say "is this on the right track to meet our needs for simple-chat?" :-)

I think it's on the right track, but I'm biased. :)

> Agreed, and whether that decision is necessarily the same for MSRP as for XMPP.

True. Even if some folks decide to go down the "avoid confusables" path,
I think it would be optional -- something that goes above and beyond
what is strictly necessary from a PRECIS point of view.

Peter

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

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:00:38 +0100

Hi guys,

I think this draft is a very good start.

So, I believe the SIMPLE chat draft should just add one sentence with a 
normative statement pointing this draft, and we are done.

Do we all agree that this is the path forward?

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Geir Arne Sandbakken <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:51:00 +0100

Ben, Peter,

Can¹t say I¹m not a  cautious about adding normative references this late in
the process,  but the internationalization of nicknames is clearly under
specified.  Moving towards having a common set of rules for handling
nicknames should help implementers,  and Peter¹s draft seems to provide
exactly what we want.

Thanks,
Geir A

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:36:34 -0600

(as individual)

I concur, although I might suggest a non-normative sentence or two explaining why we think that the simple-chat usage of nicknames fits that draft, and explicitly punting on confusable characters. That's all covered in Peter's draft, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat it here. If it takes more than two sentences, it's probably too much.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> So, I believe the SIMPLE chat draft should just add one sentence with a normative statement pointing this draft, and we are done.
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:46:40 -0500

> I concur, although I might suggest a non-normative sentence or two explaining why we think that the simple-chat usage of nicknames fits that draft, and explicitly punting on confusable characters.…

I agree. But note that this will be a normative dependency, and so will 
stall the progression of this draft until that one progresses.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:43 -0700

On 3/7/12 9:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> I concur, although I might suggest a non-normative sentence or two
>> explaining why we think that the simple-chat usage of nicknames fits
>> that draft, and explicitly punting on confusable characters. That's
>> all covered in Peter's draft, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat it here.
>> If it takes more than two sentences, it's probably too much.
> 

Yes, that's unfortunate. However, a number of folks want to get the
PRECIS work done (e.g., the XMPP WG would like to finish 6122bis), so
with enough attention I think it can be completed fairly quickly.

It might help for folks here to review the PRECIS specs and provide some
"newbie" reviews for sanity...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-04

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-framework-01

Thanks!

Peter

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:03:11 -0600

On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> I agree. But note that this will be a normative dependency, and so will stall the progression of this draft until that one progresses.
> 

I think that's true of any path forward at this point. It would probably take longer to roll our own than to wait for PRECIS. I think that work is stable enough that we can probably "finish" the chat draft, and have it sit in the RFC editor queue until the dependencies clear.

Thanks!

Ben.