Re: [newprep] WG Review: Stringprep after IDNA2008 WG (newprep)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>>"Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>    Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
>    Jiankang> prioritize the things.  sometimes, the easier one first;
>    Jiankang> sometimes, the difficult one first.
>Sure.
>That's fine for the WG to do.
>I don't think it is good to do in the charter without  some fairness
>criteria.
>All items brought up by the time external review of the charter
>concluded seems like a reasonable fairness criteria.
>Putting the cutoff before that seems unreasonable.
>
>Obviously, the WG can internally prioritize (and change its priorities)
>within its normal administrative processes.
>
>    Jiankang> If peter's list is not ok for you, could you kindly give
>    Jiankang> us your list?
>
>The list in the charter plus:
>
>1) Considering Kerberos implications for SASLPREP revisions
>  
>
Sam,
I think this is granted. I don't think this needs to be written into the 
charter, especially considering that there is a good deal of overlap 
between people active in Kerberos and SASL WGs.

>2) Considering RFC 4282.
>  
>
Do you consider RFC 4282 to be a stringprep profile? My quick scan of 
the document (in particular Section 2.4) is not conclusive.

>Both of these are stringprep issues.  Kerberos has been intending to use
>SASLPREP; if you revise SASLPREP without considering what happens for
>Kerberos, then you'll just end up revising it yet again later.
>
>NAIs seem to use more of the IDNA2003 rules than just the IDNA 2003
>stringprep profile, but they do use that profile as well.
>  
>