----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:20 PM > > --On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:04 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - > Filament <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/21/17 10:40 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > >> How would you > >> feel about making the phrase something closer to "the basic > >> Latin repertoire, i.e., the letters and digits of ASCII as > >> described above" and moving the RFC 20 citation to the first > >> use of "ASCII" in that previous paragraph? > > > > OLD > > > > In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible > > when protocols evolve and the environment around them > > changes, URN namespaces SHOULD NOT allow characters outside > > the basic Latin repertoire [RFC20] unless the nature of the > > particular URN namespace makes such characters necessary. > > > > NEW > > > > In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible > > when protocols evolve and the environment around them > > changes, URN namespaces SHOULD NOT allow non-ASCII > > characters [RFC6365] unless the nature of the particular > > URN namespace makes such characters necessary. > > > > The term "non-ASCII" is defined in RFC 6365 and seems perfectly > > appropriate here. > > Wfm. Tom? OK (after some thought). As you surmise, I am not familiar with 'basic Latin' as a term of art and did wonder if that was intended to exclude digits (since they came to Europe later, with the Arabs). The NEW text clarifies that. Tom Petch > > john > > >