Subject: [newprep] charter

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:17:30 -0500

well, let me start a discussion.

as co-author of stringprep (and the one who suggested the idea of 
nameprep and stringprep separation to my co-author), I can say that the 
new idna that uses a different approach may not be needed for others. 
Having said that, I agree with the charter that we should at least 
revisit strinprep profiles and see if they would be better with a 
new-idna approach. It would also help if we have a document that 
describes the different approaches and pros and cons so that new 
protocol designers will know what to do.

To summarize, charter makes sense to me and I'm available to help/work 
on this problem.

Marc.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:22:03 -0700

> well, let me start a discussion.

Much appreciated.

> protocol designers will know what to do.

Yes, I think those would be very helpful directions to pursue.

> To summarize, charter makes sense to me and I'm available to help/work

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

One thing I've been meaning to clarify, based on feedback from John
Klensin, is that the intent of the BoF is not necessarily to form a
working group. In fact, I think those of us who care about this issue
would be perfectly happy if the outcome of the BoF were independent
submissions, official items in other working groups, etc., but no
working group.

Peter

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

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:24:48 -0500

> submissions, official items in other working groups, etc., but no

fine by me too. need to be discussed. So are we contemplating an Anaheim 
BOF?

Marc.

> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> newprep mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/newprep

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:29:32 -0700

> fine by me too. need to be discussed. So are we contemplating an Anaheim

Most definitely. A bunch of people (mostly in the SASL and XMPP
communities) have been waiting to clarify the stringprep situation
vis-a-vis profiles like SASLprep and nodeprep/resourceprep, in my case
especially because this is blocking the completion of rfc3920bis. Now
that the IDNAbis work is done, perhaps we have a better sense of one
possible alternative to stringprep. Whether such an approach makes sense
for all existing stringprep profiles remains to be seen. But perhaps the
BoF can help us figure that out.

Peter

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