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

[[e-mail]]

> --On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 08:08 +0800 Jiankang Yao
> <[e-mail]> 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?

Well, if you want my honest and frank opinion, I think this stuff qualifies as
"Mostly Harmless". I view the chances of people implementing Xprep in protocol
Y, for pretty much any value of X or Y, as fairly low, and the chances of
implementations keeping this sort of thing up to date as about as likely as my
winning the lottery.

That said, I don't see any downside either. If what we say doesn't matter, it
doesn't matter what we say.

				Ned

P.S. I've never purchased a lottery ticket.