Unicode Character Repertoire Subsets
draft-bray-unichars-15

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-bray-unichars and RFC 9839, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this useful document that I hopefully can point people to in the future when processing input from the network :)

Some minor comments.

I was not aware of the subscript "16" as used in Section 2 as meaning "base 16" aka "hexadecimal". That might be useful to explain?

The document uses "2 ** 16" at one place and "2 16" with 16 in superscript at another place, suggesting these things are different when they are not ?

The document uses comments in describing the sets that could lead to people assuming there are errors in the document, eg:

  %x0-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF  ; exclude surrogates

  %x20-D7FF /        ; exclude surrogates

  %xA0-D7FF /                    ; exclude surrogates

I think it would be more clear if the comments were slightly different, describing the slightly different ranges, thus making the reader more confident that the document does not contain errors.

[Ballot comment]
** Abstract.  Editorial.
  This document discusses specifying subsets of the Unicode character
  repertoire for use in protocols and data formats.

What does it mean to “discuss specifying subsets”?  Doesn’t Section 4 explicitly specify subsets?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-bray-unichars-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am not familiar with Unicode and the ART area, I am balloting No Objection as I assume that the misunderstanding is on my side (plus my trust in the sponsoring AD). But, I would welcome replies to the following comments especially about the intended status.

## Abstract

s/for use in protocols and data formats/for use by the IETF in protocols and data formats/ as this I-D mentions several other SDOs, let's be clear.

## Intended status

I wonder why the intended status is "proposed standard" when section 1 contains "This document discusses issues" and "this document only provides guidance" and I was unable to find strict normative language in the document.

## Section 2.1

Should there be informative references to `JSON, YAML, CBOR, and XML` ?

## Section 2.2.1

While all other sections provide a nice summary and explanations, there is no explanation about "surrogate". Readers who are non familiar with Unicode, like me, would welcome some explanations though.

## Section 3

The non familiar reader would also welcome some explanation about `the noncharacter U+7FFFF encoded per JSON rules as two escaped UTF-16 surrogate code points` ;-)

## PRECIS WG

Rather than referring to a WG, why not referring to the 8 RFCs published by the PRECIS WG ?

I had previously pulled this document from the telechat: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/YB5oQPoSlK9poq4sU5QLqP1MkFU/

After discussion on the list, feedback has been addressed.

I am therefore moving the document back to IESG Evaluation.

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

No.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

N/A

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

There has been a lot of discussion including a debate about a similar draft
from Carsten Borman but nothing rises to the level of an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Not formally implemeted as far as I know, but several of the profiles define
codepoint sets already in use, e.e., as XML text.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There have been two ARTART reviews, a GENART review, and an informal review by the AD.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A.  There is some ABNF but it's very simple.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Pretty close but some late reviews bring up issues worth considering.

John Klensin notes that there are issues with strings of code points beyond
those of the individual code points.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/rwbnspeb38Mlk5Osu_-gdHRycPE/

Carsten Bormann has questions about control characters including CR, LF, FF,
NUL and DEL.  He also thinks it should say something about BOMs, preferably
consistent with what the Unicode spec says.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards Track.  Carsten asked if that's appropriate, Orie explained why.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, authors said they did.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ZZf0DHSTt6d0lfs4NX-QqrXr4rg/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, same message as #12.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Non-ASCII characters found, which are deliberate.  Complaint that it includes MUST
but doesn't have 2119 reference, false alarm because that's a quote from another
document. Normative references to non-IETF documents, see below.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are normative references to two Unicode documents that are both freely
available on the web and I believe are stable, so they're OK.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No IANA actions, the ones in earlier drafts are gone.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-03-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-bray-unichars@ietf.org, johnl@taugh.com, orie@or13.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Unicode Character Repertoire Subsets) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Unicode Character Repertoire Subsets'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-03-03. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document discusses specifying subsets of the Unicode character
  repertoire for use in protocols and data formats.  It also specifies
  those subsets as PRECIS profiles.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bray-unichars/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

No.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

N/A

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

There has been a lot of discussion including a debate about a similar draft
from Carsten Borman but it was all resolved.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Not formally implemeted as far as I know, but several of the profiles define
codepoint sets already in use, e.e., as XML text.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There have been two ARTART reviews, a GENART review, and an informal review by the AD.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A.  There is some ABNF but it's very simple.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards Track.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, authors said they did.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ZZf0DHSTt6d0lfs4NX-QqrXr4rg/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, same message as #12.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Non-ASCII characters found, which are deliberate.  Complaint that it includes MUST
but doesn't have 2119 reference, false alarm because that's a quote from another
document.  Copyright year is last year, which is correct.  Normative references to non-IETF
documents, see below.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are normative references to two Unicode documents that are both freely
available on the web and I believe are stable, so they're OK.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

It adds three new entries to they PRECIS Profiles registry, which match the
descriptions in the document.  The expert has has reviewed them and agrees that the regisistration
text is OK.  He notes "I'm still not convinced that these subsets are needed or advisable, but I don't have the bandwidth to engage on the topic."

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

No.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

N/A

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

There has been a lot of discussion including a debate about a similar draft
from Carsten Borman but it was all resolved.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Not formally implemeted as far as I know, but several of the profiles define
codepoint sets already in use, e.e., as XML text.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There have been two ARTART reviews, a GENART review, and an informal review by the AD.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A.  There is some ABNF but it's very simple.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards Track.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, authors said they did.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ZZf0DHSTt6d0lfs4NX-QqrXr4rg/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, same message as #12.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Non-ASCII characters found, which are deliberate.  Complaint that it includes MUST
but doesn't have 2119 reference, false alarm because that's a quote from another
document.  Copyright year is last year, which is correct.  Normative references to non-IETF
documents, see below.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are normative references to two Unicode documents that are both freely
available on the web and I believe are stable, so they're OK.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

It adds three new entries to they PRECIS Profiles registry, which match the
descriptions in the document.  The expert has commented on the draft and said
he would review it again.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries.

-09 has no reviews, and no document shepherd has been assigned yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/?q=draft-bray-unichars-09

once reviews have been gathered, there will likely be changes needed, hence I am marking this draft as revised I-D needed.

I have decided to AD Sponsor this document.

Thanks to the alldispatch, and art area discussions leading up to and after IETF 119.

Please continue to use the ART list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/) to provide reviews and organize discussion.