Subject: [Lager] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lager-specification-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:37:45 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Label Generation Rules of the IETF.

        Title           : Representing Label Generation Rulesets using XML
        Authors         : Kim Davies
                          Asmus Freytag
	Filename        : draft-ietf-lager-specification-09.txt
	Pages           : 76
	Date            : 2016-02-29

Abstract:
   This document describes a method of representing rules for validating
   identifier labels and alternate representations of those labels using
   Extensible Markup Language (XML).  These policies, known as "Label
   Generation Rulesets" (LGRs), are used for the implementation of
   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), for example.  The rulesets are
   used to implement and share that aspect of policy defining which
   labels and Unicode code points are permitted for registrations, which
   alternative code points are considered variants, and what actions may
   be performed on labels containing those variants.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lager-specification/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lager-specification-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lager-specification-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

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

---

From: Kim Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:50:24 +0000

Folks,

Asmus and I think this addresses all the issues identified in the WGLC. That
said, we’d like to draw your attention to the <scope> extension mechanism in
s4.3.4. A number of reviewers felt the approach described in earlier drafts was not
clear, and upon further reflection even if it was made clear it was probably not
easy to implement either.

We’ve put in text for an alternate mechanism, and hope the new text is clearer
and provides a flexible mechanism. In essence, we propose you can extend the scope
types by either using XML namespaces to declare your own scoping grammar
independently of the LGR spec, or make a new supplemental specification describing
new values for the scope type attribute.

kim

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:37 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lager mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lager