Re: [precis] Fwd: Milestones changed for precis WG

Peter Saint-Andre <> Tue, 01 March 2016 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791631B42BA for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:56:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iHwn9P4Y5wMX for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60701B4303 for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B872E81D0; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:01:56 -0700 (MST)
References: <> <>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:56:39 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] Fwd: Milestones changed for precis WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:56:54 -0000

On 3/1/16 3:23 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> hello,
>   we were thinking of closing the working group since the main topics
> have been done and published as RFC. However, as some mailing list
> discussions require that some corrections to RFC 7564 and 7613 are
> needed, we added those two milestones to the charter. The intent is when
> those are done, we would close the working group.

Thanks, Marc. Here is my understanding of what needs to be done:

In RFC 7564:

1. Change §5.2.3 to mention Unicode toLower() as an alternative to 
Unicode Default Case Folding and describe the circumstances in which 
toLower() is appropriate.

2. Change the order of operations in §7 from MUST to SHOULD (we've 
already deviated from that slightly in RFC 7613 §3.2.1).

3. Clarify the meaning of 'preparation' (because it is different from 
what stringprep meant by the term).

In RFC 7613:

a. Revisit Unicode Default Case Folding here, too.

b. Modify the *presentation* (but not the content) of the rules for each 
profile, along the lines of what we did in RFC 7700 (i.e., describe the 
rules in one section and then use them in separate sections on 
preparation, enforcement, and comparison).

We'll also want to review and correct the errata that have been reported.

I can commit to doing this work.