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

[John C Klensin <[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?

   john