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

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "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
    Jiankang> criteria.
All items brought up by the time external review of the charter
    Jiankang> 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
2) Considering RFC 4282.

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.