UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646
draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-05

[Ballot discuss]
OK, here's the ABNF issue.

ISSUE: ABNF, RFC 2234, is at Proposed.
The text with the ABNF grammar is added between Draft and Full, and
thus has had no known implementation or interoperability testing.
Thus, we can't be certain of its quality.

SUGGESTION:

1) add to the beginning of section 4:
For the convenience of implementors using ABNF, a definition of UTF-8
characters in ABNF syntax is given here.

2) Add to the end of section 4 a NOTE:
NOTE: The authoritative definition of UTF-8 is in [UNICODE] and
[ISO.10646]. This grammar is believed to describe the same thing as
what those references describe, but does not claim to be
authoritative.

3) Move the RFC 2234 reference from NORMATIVE to INFORMATIVE.

OK, it's working around the edge. But understanding the ABNF is *not*
required to implement UTF-8, which is the point of the document.

Current draft is ok, BUT, the following issues are discussed in the IESG:

(a) Do _not_ reference Unicode instead of ISO-10646

(b) Say in some text that we move to Standard with just testing 1-4 octets, changing the spec to cover just those values. That is, we should assume that the draft standard is for 1-4 octets, and therefore the full standard is too.

(c) Slip in a sentence somewhere (maybe as a security consideration) indicating that > 4 bytes is possible in the future and that programs should not be designed on the assumption that they will never see more than four bytes.  I.e., interoperability testing at <= 4 is fine, but I'd hate to set someone up for a buffer overflow problem.