Re: [EAI] POP (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-05), SASLPrep, and Stringprep

Personal thought.

If we picked (2) with "... or one of its standards-track successors",
then I have some concern whether the following paragraph (the 4th in
section 3.2, about how to apply SASLprep on different arguments) may
trip or confuse readers.  I may simply worry too much [I hope].

If we picked (3), are we meant to write another bis when RFC4013 being
updated/obsoleted?

That say, I prefer (2), and would like to ask others if leaving the
4th paragraph unchanged ok.

Joseph

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:35 AM, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 08:08 +0800 Jiankang Yao
> <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote:
>
>>...
>>...
>>>>> (2) If changes are needed, should Section 3.2 be rewritten
>>>>> to explicitly allow conformance with the successors of 4013
>>>>> as an alternative?  I think that would require only a few
>>>>> changes of wording.
>>>
>>>> But that would require pointing to a document with unclear
>>>> date of completion...
>>>
>>> Nope.  It would require saying something like "MUST conform to
>>> 4013 or one of its standards-track successors".  That doesn't
>>> promise that there will be such successors much less when they
>>> will be done.  And it ties the MUST to any version, not the
>>> particular version represented by 4013.  I am _not_ suggesting
>>> that is the best thing to do, only that it wouldn't be hard if
>>> we decided to do it.
>>>
>>
>> I think that your suggestion saying something like "MUST
>> conform to
>> 4013 or one of its standards-track successors"  is something
>> between choice 2 and 3.
>> Since the time to submission cut off is coming, I have
>> submitted the new version.
>> If the WG has the consensus on it, we can update it or keep it.
>
> Thanks.  What do others think?
>
>    john
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima