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