Re: [idn] Re: stringprep: PRI #29

Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org> Mon, 21 March 2005 18:37 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03730 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:37:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DDRfQ-000AnK-BD for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:30:20 +0000
Received: from [207.115.63.77] (helo=pimout1-ext.prodigy.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DDRfM-000Ame-5Q for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:30:16 +0000
Received: from [10.1.1.2] (adsl-64-174-147-206.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.174.147.206]) by pimout1-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2LIU2mU062168; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:30:10 -0500
Message-ID: <423F12A9.60009@vanderpoel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:30:01 -0800
From: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
CC: idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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>
In-Reply-To: <iluis3mxbqq.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>>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?

Erik