Subject: [precis] Belated WGLC comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:50:41 -0600

Hi,

I apologize for the lateness of this. If my comments are a moot by now, 
please feel free to ignore them.

I support publication of this, and  think this version is pretty much 
ready to go. I have a few editorial comments that might be worth 
considering if there is an update.

- Abstract:

It would be nice if the abstract mentioned something about moving from 
stringprep to the precis-framework.

- 3.4, third bullet: "… protocols that do not use SASL …"

should this paragraph include "and follow the recommendations in this 
document" or "and that reuse this profile"? clause

— 6

The text refers to the 4013 as SASLPrep. But this draft is _also_ 
SASLPrep, isn't it? At least, it has SASLPrepbis in the short title. (Or 
does the term saslprep get dropped entirely when the draft becomes an 
RFC?)

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:39:32 -0700

Hi Ben, thanks for the review! You've been a reviewing machine lately - 
must be getting in shape for IESG duty. ;-)

> stringprep to the precis-framework.

Agreed.

> document" or "and that reuse this profile"? clause

Well, sure. :) But we can't legislate for people who aren't reading this 
specification (i.e., this isn't a BCP).

> does the term saslprep get dropped entirely when the draft becomes an RFC?)

The latter. The original document name had "saslprepbis" in it and we 
have't changed it in all this time.

Peter

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:24:06 -0600

On 25 Feb 2015, at 16:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

> Hi Ben, thanks for the review! You've been a reviewing machine lately 
> - must be getting in shape for IESG duty. ;-)

Yep. But it seems like you are an author on all of them ;-)

> On 2/25/15 2:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

[…]

> Well, sure. :) But we can't legislate for people who aren't reading 
> this specification (i.e., this isn't a BCP).

I only mentioned it because the other two bullets included it.

> have't changed it in all this time.

Okay, got it!

/Ben

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:49:37 -0700

> Yep. But it seems like you are an author on all of them ;-)

Writing machines, reviewing machines - it all goes together well!

> I only mentioned it because the other two bullets included it.

Good point. Will fix.

Peter