|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved standards track document.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
UTF coding
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3629
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 3629 has been in existence since 2003. Although new, it obsoletes RFC 2279 which has been in existence since January, 1998 and arises from draft-yergeau-utf8-rev.txt, which has been reviewed extensively in IETF.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 3629 - defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS) which encompasses most of the world's writing
systems and, as a successor to RFC 2279 , is expected to be widely used.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
Normative References/
/
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[ISO.10646] International Organization for Standardization,/
"Information Technology - Universal Multiple-octet coded/
Character Set (UCS)", ISO/IEC Standard 10646, comprised/
of ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000, "Information technology --/
Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) --/
Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane",/
ISO/IEC 10646-2:2001, "Information technology --/
Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) --/
Part 2: Supplementary Planes" and ISO/IEC 10646-/
1:2000/Amd 1:2002, "Mathematical symbols and other/
characters"./
/
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard -- Version/
4.0", defined by The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0/
(Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003. ISBN 0-321-18578-1),/
April 2003, http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard//
versions/enumeratedversions.html#Unicode_4_0_0./
/
14. Informative References/
/
[CESU-8] Phipps, T., "Unicode Technical Report #26: Compatibility/
Encoding Scheme for UTF-16: 8-Bit (CESU-8)", UTR 26,/
April 2002,/
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr26/./
/
[FSS_UTF] X/Open Company Ltd., "X/Open Preliminary Specification --/
File System Safe UCS Transformation Format (FSS-UTF)",/
May 1993, http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg20/docs//
N193-FSS-UTF.pdf./
/
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail/
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message/
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996./
/
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax/
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997./
/
[RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration/
Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000./
/
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
