[idn] Re: stringprep: PRI #29

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> Mon, 21 March 2005 18:44 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04228 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:44:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DDRna-000COd-QL for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:38:46 +0000
Received: from [217.13.230.178] (helo=yxa.extundo.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DDRnV-000CM0-8g for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:38:41 +0000
Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j2LIcVWc030033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:38:35 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
To: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [idn] Re: stringprep: PRI #29
References: <42322CE2.4040509@vanderpoel.org> <4232B2FD.1080104@vanderpoel.org> <4232BA56.5090001@vanderpoel.org> <iluk6odazwb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <00e801c528a8$99ad37d0$72703009@sanjose.ibm.com> <ilull8qb5n5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <42367B63.6080300@vanderpoel.org> <4237450A.9010901@v.loewis.de> <423754F3.50405@vanderpoel.org> <ilumzt47ezc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <20050316091126.GA24254~@nicemice.net> <iluzmx36h6t.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <423CD9DC.5080401@vanderpoel.org> <ilur7iaycuj.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <423DB883.1020408@vanderpoel.org> <iluis3mxbqq.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <423F12A9.60009@vanderpoel.org>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
Blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jas4711/
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050321:idn@ops.ietf.org::973Eqeii+eGezdXs:7iU
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050321:erik@vanderpoel.org::UGWhpGl/iMJsAovI:2l2H
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:38:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <423F12A9.60009@vanderpoel.org> (Erik van der Poel's message of "Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:30:01 -0800")
Message-ID: <ilupsxs7skt.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.83, clamav-milter version 0.83 on yxa.extundo.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org> writes:

>>>>Everyone can submit their own update of RFC
>>>>3454 to the IETF and advocate for their proposal.  I don't care
>>>>strongly which solution is chosen, if there is a good migration plan
>>>>to the new idea.  Meanwhile, implementors will route around the damage
>>>>and pick their own solutions.
>>>
>>> OK, let's suppose just for the moment, that we decide to have
>>> Stringprep point to version 24 or higher of UAX #15. Can you think
>>> of a migration plan that would satisfy ultra-conservative
>>> implementors like yourself?
>> The spec could suggest that all problem sequences are to be
>> rejected.
>
> One way is to have more than one Internet Draft from individuals, and 
> another way is to have a single draft that lists all the alternatives 
> and discusses pros and cons of each. I guess the latter approach is 
> sometimes used by working groups, but we don't currently have a 
> Stringprep working group. Thoughts?

I don't think a working group is required to do this work.  I believe
updates of older standards are sometimes done outside a working group.

Having a draft outlining the alternatives would be a useful
contribution.  Could be a first step towards producing a single draft
incorporating a solution.

Thanks,
Simon