Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters
RFC 5987

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-22 for -)
No email
send info
  In section 3.2:
  >
  > Producers MUST NOT use character sets other than "UTF-8" ([RFC3629])
  > or "ISO-8859-1" ([ISO-8859-1]).
  >
  Better to say:
  >
  > Producers MUST use either the "UTF-8" ([RFC3629]) or the
  > "ISO-8859-1" ([ISO-8859-1]) character set.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-19 for -)
No email
send info
In section 3.2:

   Producers MUST NOT use character sets other than "UTF-8" ([RFC3629])
   or "ISO-8859-1" ([ISO-8859-1]).  Extension character sets (ext-
   charset) are reserved for future use.

ext-charset does not appear in the ABNF.  Should it?

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-19 for -)
No email
send info
In Section 3.2, there appears to be confusion between the terms "mime-charset" and "ext-charset".

Section 4.1 of this I-D states:

   Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing
   text are able to carry language information.  Thus, the ext-value
   production should always be used when the parameter value is of
   textual nature and its language is known.

In fact RFC 2277 states that "[a]ll human-readable text has a language" and appears to emphasize human-readable text. Although it's not truly clear if RFC 2277 makes a distinction between "text" and "human-readable text", it might be useful to incorporate that distinction here because many textual strings included in protocol elements are not intended for human consumption.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-18 for -)
No email
send info
Sec 3.3, Is the link to the WG ticket stable enough for a standards track document?

Sec 4.1, r/should/SHOULD X2

Sec 4.2, r/recommended/RECOMMENDED