Thanks John, I'll take you up on that. It's a good point that this is a good way to dip a toe in the process stuff, so if someone else for whom that'd be a good plan mails me I'll let you know that they're doing it instead. Cheers, S. On 06/12/14 17:59, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Saturday, December 06, 2014 17:21 +0000 Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> On 06/12/14 17:06, John Levine wrote: >>> PS: Thought experiment: Let's say we made RFC 20 a full >>> standard. What Bad Things will happen? >> >> Some people will be upset. Same as if we don't do that:-) > > Based on working in some closely-related areas, the only > legitimate objection I can think of would come from folks who > would claim that ASCII has outlived its usefulness and that we > should drop all references to ASCII, US-ASCII, and RFC 20 in > favor of what I guess would be something like "the Basic Latin > and C0 repertoire of Unicode, represented by code points U+0000 > through U+007F, coded in UTF-8". However, if one takes that > position, then RFC 20 should be moved to Historic, all protocol > specs that we now have that reference ASCII should be viewed as > obsolescent, and we should refuse to accept any new specs that > depend on ASCII unless it is defined in those Unicode terms (see > my previous note and remember that includes almost anything that > depends on ABNF). If only because it would generate a lot of > basically-useless work, I don't think we want to go there. > > While it would affect very few specs in practice, there are also > some subtle differences between ASCII and the Unicode C0+Basic > Latin definition. > >> I'm fine with pushing this one along the stds track and >> will kick that off next week. I need to go re-read whatever >> process stuff is involved, but if someone wants to be the >> shepherd for this, (I'm guessing one is needed/handy) then >> just mail me. > > Since I started this and believe that very little is required > (and most of that is putting what has been written already into > shepherd template form), I'm willing to do it unless someone > else volunteers. > > However, if there is anyone around with a little less experience > in this stuff than you, me, or John L and who would like to get > a first-hand introduction to the process of moving/shepherding a > document through the system with me playing advisor, I'd rather > spend my time that way than on template construction. So, if > you or other IESG members, or any mentor or EDU team members who > happen to be reading this know likely candidates who could use > that bit of education (or someone out there wants to volunteer > themselves), speak up. > >> PS: If Barry or anyone else wants to do this instead that's >> fine by me. > > thanks, > john > > > > >