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

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 14:28 +0100 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Reassurance of what?  Do you have a pointer to that discussion?

There should be minutes of that SAAG meeting (at IETF 69, on 26
July)

> If nobody considers StringPrep to be part of IDNA2003, I
> believe the documents should reflect that.

At worst, I don't see any harm in doing that.

   john