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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: <ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov>; <ietf@ietf.org>; "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>; <newprep@ietf.org>; <aland@freeradius.org>; "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [newprep] WG Review: Stringprep after IDNA2008 WG (newprep)

>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> writes:
> 
>    Peter> On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>    >> I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've
>    >> brought up in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph
>    Peter> I proposed:
> 
>    Peter>    Although the group will seek input from and may provide
>    Peter> advice to "customers" working on other technologies, it will
>    Peter> prioritize work on the above-listed stringprep profiles and
>    Peter> will take on additional tasks as official milestones only
>    Peter> after rechartering.
> 
> I am actually fine with this if you note in the above text that Kerberos
> needs to be considered when considering SASLPREP and explicitly add RFC
> 4282.

+1

> 
> What I'm objecting to is prioritizing the list of stringprep profiles
> you've identified to other stringprep profiles that came up during the
> discussion of the charter.

If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally prioritize the things.
sometimes, the easier one first; sometimes, the difficult one first.

If peter's list is not ok for you, could you kindly give us your list?

thanks.

Jiankang Yao

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf