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

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Tue Mar 18 02:42:53 CET 2008


At 1:29 AM +0100 3/18/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>I did a quick scan:
>
>* RFC 4018 reference nameprep.  Rather than using nameprep, perhaps it
>   should have specified that its domain slots are IDN-aware and just
>   reference IDNA instead, though.
>
>* RFC 4279 reference nameprep, but only informatively.  Perhaps it
>   should have referenced just IDNA; similar to RFC 4018.
>
>* RFC 4343 reference nameprep, but only informatively.  It seems fine.
>
>* RFC 4414 reference nameprep.  Perhaps it should have referenced just
>   IDNA; similar to RFC 4018.
>
>* RFC 5144 reference nameprep.  Perhaps it should have referenced just
>   IDNA; similar to RFC 4018.
>
>* RFC 4185, RFC 4290, RFC 4690, RFC 4713 are informational, and is
>   probably not a problem.

'Nuff said. Nameprep should be listed as not being obsoleted.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list