Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt

On 18 Sep 2017, at 20:24, Sam Whited wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017, at 18:18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Look, Sam, I agree that perhaps someday we can do better, but the 
>> level
>> of effort to get there is significant and this working group does't 
>> have
>> the energy to do that.
>
> If there's no energy to make the change then I don't see any reason to
> continue this discussion. It sounds like I'm disagreeing with 
> something
> that's fundamental to the construction of PRECIS, so if the change 
> isn't
> going to be made either way there's no point in holding publication of
> the current drafts.

That is also my conclusion. You have raised good points, some were 
discussed before, but if the end resolution is to redesign precis (such 
as changing the normalization form which is a major redesign), then I 
think we shall proceed with the publication and then some people like 
you can start another round of revisions of the documents. As you may 
know, the first iteration of this work was called Stringprep (RFC3454), 
then we moved to the new IDNA framework based on Unicode rules which led 
into Precis. At the time of Stringprep, we already knew some of its 
weaknesses. Neither Stringprep or Precis is perfect. So I encourage you 
to write a proposal and submit it as internet-draft (and advertise it to 
this mailing list).

Marc.

>
> Thanks for discussing it and helping me understand the problem more
> fully.
>
> —Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> precis mailing list
> precis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis