]> ICANN

paul.hoffman@icann.org

Spherical Cow Consulting

hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com

Internet-Draft The RFC Series has evolved to allow for the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs. While English remains the required language of the Series, the encoding of RFCs is now in UTF-8, allowing for a broader range of characters than typically used in the English language. This document describes requirements and guidelines for the RFC Editor regarding the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs. This document obsoletes RFC 7997. The differences reflect changes in the practices of the RFC series since RFC 7997 was published, and makes further changes based on agreements in the IETF community about what characters are allowed in RFCs. [[ A repository for this draft can be found here. ]]

Introduction For much of the history of the RFC Series, the character encoding used for RFCs has been ASCII . This was a sensible choice at the time: the language of the Series has always been English, a language that primarily uses ASCII-encoded characters (ignoring for a moment words borrowed from more richly decorated alphabets); and, ASCII is the "lowest common denominator" for character encoding, making cross-platform viewing trivial. There are limits to ASCII, however, that hinder its continued use as the exclusive character encoding for the Series. At the time of the publication of , the increasing need for easily readable, internationalized content suggested that it is time to allow non-ASCII characters in RFCs where necessary. To support this move away from ASCII, RFCs switched to supporting UTF-8 as the default character encoding and allowed support for a broad range of Unicode characters . This document describes the rules under which non-ASCII characters may be used in an RFC. These rules will be applied as the necessary changes are made to submission checking and editorial tools. This document updates the RFC Style Guide . The details included in this document are expected to change based on experience gained in publishing new RFCs.

Changes from RFC 7997 The following is an overview of the changes in this document from : Added the role of the RFC stream approving bodies and the RFC Production Center (RPC) as described in . All responsibilities that were held by the RFC Editor in are handled by the RPC. When the RPC has questions about the content of RFCs, the RPC asks the RFC stream approving bodies for input. Removed requirements of marking non-ASCII characters with XML markup. Clarified that person and names with non-Latin characters should have Latin transliterations. Removed the suggestion that character names for non-ASCII characters be included, instead relying on the "U+NNNN" syntax from . Added the suggestion that non-ASCII characters generally appear in NFC. Added that Non-ASCII text can appear in any part of an RFC. The basic requirements in were softened to reflect the realities of the variability of search engines and web browsers. Changed from "Rules for the Use of Non-ASCII Characters" to "Use of Non-ASCII Characters" because the RPC has used, and should continue to use, their own discretion based on what makes the RFC most useful. Language about the future was changed to the past tense to indicate that was already implemented. For example, "RFCs will switch" was changed to to "RFCs switched", and so on. Also added more acknowledgement of the use of non-ASCII characters outside the narrow scope that was defined in . Updated the requirements on keywords and citation tags. Greatly rearranged and simplified the text about person, company, and postal names. Added text about non-breaking spaces and hypens.

Basic Requirements for Non-ASCII Text in RFCs The following fundamental requirements inform the guidance and examples provided in this document. They are: Searches against RFC indexes and database tables should return expected results and support appropriate Unicode string matching behaviors. RFCs should be displayed correctly across a wide range of readers and browsers. People whose systems do not have the fonts needed to display a particular RFC need to be able to read the various publication formats and the XML correctly in order to understand and implement the information described in the document. As stated in the RFC Style Guide , the language of the RFC Series is English.

Use of Non-ASCII Text in RFCs This section describes the guidelines for the use of non-ASCII characters in an RFC. If the RPC identifies areas where the use of non-ASCII characters in an RFC negatively impacts the readability of the text, they can require that the authors supply alternate text or change the non-ASCII characters to better suit the expected readers of the RFC. When the RPC has questions about non-ASCII text in RFCs, the RPC can ask the RFC stream approving bodies for input. The RPC can also consult the RSAB and the RSWG on such matters. In general, using the "U+NNNN" syntax from is the suggested way to show Unicode code points as alternate text. Characters in an RFC will generally appear in Normalization Form C (NFC) as defined in . If the RFC would be more correct and more understandable with particular characters not in NFC, the RPC can make an exception and use unnormalized text. In such a case, a text note should be included to describe why unnormalized text used. Non-ASCII text can appear in any part of an RFC, such as headings, running text, and artwork. Non-ASCII text in person, company, and postal names are covered later in . When the non-ASCII characters are required for correct protocol operation and understanding, the characters' Unicode code points should also appear in the text in the "U+NNNN" syntax, at least on first use in the RFC. describes the pros and cons of different options for identifying Unicode characters and may help authors decide how to represent the non-ASCII characters in their documents. Where the use of non-ASCII characters is purely part of an example and not otherwise required for correct protocol operation, giving the Unicode equivalent of the non-ASCII characters is not required, but it can improve the readability of the RFC. For example, for text that says "The value can be followed by a monetary symbol such as ¥ or €", the RPC might require that it instead say "The value can be followed by a monetary symbol such as ¥ (U+00A5) or € (U+20AC)". Use of the actual non-ASCII character (such as common math symbols like √ and ≤) is encouraged so that a reader can more easily see what the character is. This is done without adding the "U+NNNN" syntax. As another example, says:

This could be replaced with:

Code components may have different requirements for using the "U+NNNN" syntax. The use of the "U+NNNN" syntax in code components is recommended, except within a code component where one must follow the rules of the programming language in which the code is being written.

Person and Company Identification Person names and company names appear in several places within an RFC (e.g., the header, Acknowledgements, and References). It is important to note that non-ASCII characters in person and company names are treated differently than other parts of the body of a document. Names are often transliterated into Latin characters; non-ASCII characters in other body text are shown with the "U+NNNN" syntax after the character. When a script outside the ASCII character set is used for an individual name, an author-provided, ASCII-only transliteration can appear immediately after the non-ASCII characters, surrounded by parentheses. The RPC decides on a case-by-case basis whether to include the ASCII-only transliteration. Names of authors appear at the top of RFCs and in the References section with a first initial (if available) and family name. For example, Qin Wu's name might appear as "吴钦 (Q. Wu)". As another example, Patrik Fältström's name might appear as "P. Fältström (P. Faltstrom)", but the version with non-ASCII Latin characters also might be left just as "P. Fältström". In the Acknowledgements section, the person's full name is spelled out in full without the first initial, such as "The following people contributed to this document: 吴钦 (Qin Wu), ...". Postal addresses may be used without additional Unicode character identification. If an author's email address includes non-ASCII characters and is a valid email address at the time of publication, it may be given without additional Unicode character identification.

Keywords and Citation Tags Keywords (as tagged with the <keyword> element in XML) may contain non-ASCII characters. Because the language of the RFC Series is English, the keywords for an RFC are likely to be mostly in English as well. Non-ASCII keywords can have parallel ASCII equivalents in order to make searching more effective. Citation tags (as defined in the anchor attributes of <reference> elements) may contain non-ASCII characters if doing so make the citation tag more useful to the reader. The RPC should prevent the use of characters in citation tags that make RFCs difficult to read, such as characters with right-to-left orientation.

Non-breaking Spaces and Hyphens Non-breaking space characters (U+00A0) and non-breaking hyphen characters (U+2011) make searching for words and phrases in published RFC more difficult. Therefore they should be used sparingly in RFCs.

XML Markup [[ This section needs revision after community discussion ]] As described above, use of non-ASCII characters in areas such as email, company name, address, and name is allowed. In order to make it easier for code to identify the appropriate ASCII alternatives, authors must include an "ascii" attribute to their XML markup when an ASCII alternative is required. See for more detail on how to tag ASCII alternatives.

Internationalization Considerations The ability to use non-ASCII characters in RFCs in a clear and consistent manner improves the ability to describe internationalized protocols and recognizes the diversity of authors. However, the goal of readability overrides the use of non-ASCII characters within the text.

Security Considerations Valid Unicode that matches the expected text must be verified in order to preserve expected behavior and protocol information.

There are a number of circumstances in which an escape mechanism is needed in conjunction with a protocol to encode characters that cannot be represented or transmitted directly. With ASCII coding, the traditional escape has been either the decimal or hexadecimal numeric value of the character, written in a variety of different ways. The move to Unicode, where characters occupy two or more octets and may be coded in several different forms, has further complicated the question of escapes. This document discusses some options now in use and discusses considerations for selecting one for use in new IETF protocols, and protocols that are now being internationalized. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document defines the "xml2rfc" version 3 vocabulary: an XML-based language used for writing RFCs and Internet-Drafts. It is heavily derived from the version 2 vocabulary that is also under discussion. This document obsoletes the v2 grammar described in RFC 7749. In order to support the internationalization of protocols and a more diverse Internet community, the RFC Series must evolve to allow for the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs. While English remains the required language of the Series, the encoding of future RFCs will be in UTF-8, allowing for a broader range of characters than typically used in the English language. This document describes the RFC Editor requirements and gives guidance regarding the use of non-ASCII characters in RFCs. This document updates RFC 7322. Please view this document in PDF form to see the full text. This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. The model defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series. First, policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second, policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC). In addition, various responsibilities of the RFC Editor function are now performed alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC. Finally, this document establishes the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy definition documents produced through the processes defined herein. This document obsoletes RFC 8728. This document updates RFCs 7841, 8729, and 8730. The Unicode Consortium This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors". Application protocols using Unicode characters in protocol strings need to properly handle such strings in order to enforce internationalization rules for strings placed in various protocol slots (such as addresses and identifiers) and to perform valid comparison operations (e.g., for purposes of authentication or authorization). This document defines a framework enabling application protocols to perform the preparation, enforcement, and comparison of internationalized strings ("PRECIS") in a way that depends on the properties of Unicode characters and thus is agile with respect to versions of Unicode. As a result, this framework provides a more sustainable approach to the handling of internationalized strings than the previous framework, known as Stringprep (RFC 3454). This document obsoletes RFC 3454. The Unicode Consortium

Acknowledgements The acknowledgements from are to the members of the IAB i18n program, to the RFC Format Design Team: Nevil Brownlee, Tony Hansen, Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Ted Lemon, Julian Reschke, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Robert Sparks, and Dave Thaler. This current document was greatly helped by contributions from the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), including from Brian Carpenter, Carsten Bormann, Eliot Lear, John Levine, and Martin Thomson.