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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 5/18/10 12:32 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Le 10-05-18 14:27, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>>>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Blanchet<[e-mail]>  writes:
>>
>>      Marc>  we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
>>      Marc>  restrict the scope to a specific set of documents to
>>      Marc>  review/update/... or do we keep some provision for other
>>      Marc>  documents coming in the stream that require "help" of the
>>      Marc>  newprep. I was arguing for the latter. To me, what you are
>>      Marc>  talking about is the latter. Obviously, some people wanted
>> the
>>      Marc>  charter to be restrictive in order to not go all over the
>>      Marc>  place, and I agree in principle... However, this work is
>> kinda
>>      Marc>  horizontal: touches many areas, so having a more large
>> view of
>>      Marc>  the problem space and documents that depends on this newprep
>>      Marc>  work would be very valuable to the working group
>>      Marc>  work. Therefore, I'm more for opening a bit the charter for
>>      Marc>  the cases like the ones you are talking about.
>>
>> I'm happy with a restrictive charter so long as the work areas
>> identified today (including mine) are included.
> 
> my guess is that we most likely will discover other issues/newprep
> potential "customers" as we go, that it might be useful to work on,
> since they have a lot of similarities with the others official in the
> charter. 

Agreed.

> therefore, more "opened" than closed charter.

We're trying to balance two things here: (1) we want to get as much
input as possible from current and potential customers of stringprep or
newprep/stringprepbis/whatever, but (2) we want to scope the WG tightly
enough that it doesn't have a mandate to work on "anything related to
internationalized strings".

>> I'm happy drawing a
>> line in the sand and saying "here's what we'll touch first," so long as
>> people who bring up items now get included.  I'd probably be happier
>> with a reasonably open charter.
>>
>> I'm not at all happy if the items I bring up or other similar items
>> brought up now are excluded.

In an email exchange with Marc and Alexey Melnikov last week, I proposed
adding the following paragraph to the charter:

   Although the group may provide advice regarding other technologies,
   it will prioritize work on the above-listed stringprep profiles and
   will take on additional tasks as official milestones only after
   rechartering.

We might want to broaden that a bit further to explicitly mention
seeking feedback from customers other than the existing stringprep profiles:

   Although the group will seek input from and may provide advice to
   "customers" working on other technologies, it will prioritize work
   on the above-listed stringprep profiles and will take on additional
   tasks as official milestones only after rechartering.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/