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