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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Yee" <jyee@afilias.info>
To: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
Cc: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>; "Alexey Melnikov" 
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com>; "EAI WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: 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 do not think that it will cause confusion.

The fourth paragraph of section said "When applying SASLprep [RFC4013], 
servers MUST reject UTF-8 user
   names or passwords that contain a Unicode character listed in Section
   2.3 of SASLprep [RFC4013]. "

That paragraph is for RFC4013- SASLprep ,  not for  its standards-track 
successors since the reference to SASLprep is rfc4013 not  its 
standards-track successors .
So it will not cause confusion.

Before adding the words "one of its standards-track successors", I actually 
consider the fourth paragraph.
My personal judgement is that it is ok to add it without causing the 
confusion.

Jiankang Yao

> 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
> 