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

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Thu Mar 20 11:01:58 CET 2008

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

> --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)

They are available from:


I can't find anything about StringPrep there.

Your presentation at that meeting seems fairly clear that StringPrep is
not part of IDNA2003.  For example "IDNA2003 and Stringprep" on:


The following slide also says that Stringprep won't be changed:


So if there is any reassurance to the SAAG in this, it would be that
StringPrep is _not_ part of IDNA2003 and will not be changed by the
IDNABIS effort.

>> 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.

I see harm in not doing it, as it wouldn't reflect what everyone (or?)
already believes.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list