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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, July 16, 2012 17:59 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[e-mail]> 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.

>> (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