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

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Wed Mar 19 00:20:34 CET 2008

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

>> Thus, the scope of the IDNABIS WG should be to create a
>> replacement for RFC 3490 (IDNA).  That should be in the WG
>> charter in my opinion.
> If that isn't obvious, I personally have no objection to its
> being in the charter.

I don't think it has been clear before this thread that StringPrep,
NamePrep and Punycode should not be obsoleted by IDNA200x.  It was
definitely not clear to me.  I think it would be useful to clarify this
in the charter.

I believe people from the SASL/Kerberos communities will skim at what
IDNABIS is up to from time to time, and having it clear that StringPrep
is not going to be touched will be comforting information to them.  The
same may be true for the XMPP community, but I'm not that involved

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.


[1] http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/idn/2008-03-12.txt search for 1.5.1

More information about the Idna-update mailing list