SASLprep200x

Patrik Fältström patrik at frobbit.se
Wed Jan 10 08:05:22 CET 2007


On 5 jan 2007, at 23.58, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 4:41 PM -0500 1/5/07, John C Klensin wrote:
>>  > Sure you can: you can read it as less-than-fully-honest
>>>  advertising. It was the position we were put in by everyone
>>>  who didn't want to do the hard work themselves.
>>
>> Ok.  If one is willing to accept that, then things get a lot
>> easier.  I've received some proactive feedback from an AD or two
>> that we should not assume a "make a new one and leave the old
>> one behind" strategy, but we can cross that bridge when we get
>> to it.
>
> That works for me; hopefully it works for Simon as well.

If the IETF come up with an overall architecture / framework that  
might be possible to use for more than one application, of course it  
is not prohibited/forbidden for new RFCs to NOT reference and use  
that framework.

But, the whole idea with a framework is that it is supposed to be  
possible to use for more than one thing. Otherwise it is a failure,  
and the individual standards should have done their own thing in the  
first place, creation of the framework was a waste of time.

In the case of stringprep, the idea was that the ability to create  
profiles would make it possible to reuse stringprep in more than one  
application. This to me, when I was an AD, implied that WGs before  
doing their own thing had to look at the framework to make sure that  
it could not be used. They had to argue why they did not use the  
framework.

So, I agree with both John and Paul here. Sure the SASL people (and  
IDNA people) can do their own thing and not use the stringprep  
profile architecture, but it would be much better (if we believe in  
the architecture) to create profiles.

    paf



More information about the Idna-update mailing list