Wwhich RFCs the new work would obsolete, vs update
or leave alone
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Wed Mar 19 21:05:29 CET 2008
--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
> 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.
More information about the Idna-update