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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: "EAI WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] POP (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-05), SASLPrep, and 
Stringprep

>
>
> --On Monday, July 16, 2012 17:59 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>
> Alexey, thanks.
>>...
>>> (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.

Jiankang Yao

>>> (3) Or are we better off just leaving this alone and
>>> monitoring any 4013bis efforts to make sure they contain
>>> provisions to explicitly update our spec when the time comes?
>>>
>>> These are just questions --if the WG is ok with things as they
>>> are, so am I.  But I can see this causing questions during
>>> IETF Last Call and want to be sure we have considered the
>>> issue.
>>
>> I think (3) is the best way forward, but just my 2 pence.
>
> Wfm.  I just need some signs of consensus, rough or otherwise.
>
>    john
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> 