Wwhich RFCs the new work would obsolete, vs update or leave alone

[Simon Josefsson]

John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> writes:

> --On Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 00:20 +0100 Simon Josefsson
> <simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
>
>>...
>> Btw, if I understood the jabber comments from the meeting
>> correctly [1], Paul did not consider StringPrep part of
>> IDNA2003.  idnabis-issues-07 section 1.5.1 suggests otherwise.
>> This added to my confusion whether IDNA200x will obsolete
>> StringPrep or not.
>
> FWIW, I don't consider Stringprep to be part of IDNA2003 either.
> Stringprep and Nameprep (which is part of IDNA2003) are fairly
> clear about that.  The comments appear in idnabis-issues-07 only
> because it seems desirable to explicitly make that reassurance
> to the security community after a discussion with SAAG.

Reassurance of what?  Do you have a pointer to that discussion?

If nobody considers StringPrep to be part of IDNA2003, I believe the
documents should reflect that.

/Simon