RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6365, "Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF", September 2011

Source of RFC: appsawg (app)

Errata ID: 4005
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2014-06-04
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2014-06-11

Throughout the document, when it says:


It should say:



The term "US-ASCII" is an IETF artifact, left over from some misunderstandings about what "ASCII" referred to (and the complete absence of CSCII or CASCII, MSCII or MXSCII, BRSCII, ARSCII, and other "American" coded character sets). It is a source of confusion for people who come to IETF specifications with a background in coded character sets and terminology from other areas or standards bodies and has been warned against multiple times. It should not have appeared in this document except possibly with a warning against its use (and the use of other bogus terms like "ASCII7"). The second author, who is normally sensitive to the issue, has no idea how this got past him, even in text picked up from other documents, but supposes this is what errata are for.

In any event, there is no such thing as "US-ASCII": the term is an erroneous and misleading synonym/ substitute for "ASCII". The reference for the latter is correct, but the citation anchor should probably be corrected as well.
(1) It's clear that this is NOT errata: the use of "US-ASCII" in the document was quite intentional at the time.

(2) If (and it's not clear that there's consensus on this) we think that "US-ASCII" is not the right term, the right answer is to revise the document. Should that be done, we'd open up quite a debate about what terminology is right, and why. Simply replacing all occurrences of "US-ASCII" with "ASCII" is unlikely to be the answer. Whatever should happen would be more complicated than that.

Report New Errata