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

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Wed Mar 19 14:12:11 CET 2008

--On Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 00:20 +0100 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:

> 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.

FWIW, I don't consider Stringprep to be part of IDNA2003 either.
Stringprep and Nameprep (which is part of IDNA2003) are fairly
clear about that.  The comments appear in idnabis-issues-07 only
because it seems desirable to explicitly make that reassurance
to the security community after a discussion with SAAG.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list