IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Tue, 17 July 2012 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3815421F86AB for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5n5nSPFA3tmU for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8A221F86A5 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1Sr8IL-000Cc0-EX; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:58:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:03:51 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <8713159766AF3B2C9C88DD98@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF1dMVG4=3M24qzoGTxyHWcuXwzZ32iYV9Yiw=CA_8ZebpU-2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A2474402D72A7B12E41E2D0F@192.168.1.128> <5004488E.4020307@isode.com> <1FF35DCEEF4FBDCB987245CD@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <008201cd63b0$4cd27fb0$c801a8c0@computer> <88119810B6E1D0E369999538@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAF1dMVG4=3M24qzoGTxyHWcuXwzZ32iYV9Yiw=CA_8ZebpU-2w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: EAI WG <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] POP (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-05), SASLPrep, and Stringprep
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:03:22 -0000

--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 09:42 -0400 Joseph Yee
<jyee@afilias.info> wrote:

> 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 may
> simply worry too much [I hope].

See the notes I am about to post.  Already noted that.
Sometimes Jiankang reacts a bit too quickly and doesn't bother
to think about context, but this isn't the first time.

> If we picked (3), are we meant to write another bis when
> RFC4013 being updated/obsoleted?

I'd hope that 4013bis would explicitly update this document.

> That say, I prefer (2), and would like to ask others if
> leaving the 4th paragraph unchanged ok.

Wait for my notes to appear on the list.

   john

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status