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

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Thu Mar 20 11:07:01 CET 2008

Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> writes:

> On 19 mar 2008, at 14.28, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> If nobody considers StringPrep to be part of IDNA2003, I believe the
>> documents should reflect that.
> Depends completely of context.

Can you name one context where StringPrep would be considered part of

The only place appears to be the definition of the term IDNA2003 in the
rationale document, and it seems several people (including the author of
that text) appear to believe something else than what's in the document.

> RFC 3490 have normative references to RFC 3491 and RFC 3454. So it is
> needed for IDNA2003, and because of that "part of idna2003".

RFC 3490 have a normative reference to RFC 1034 as well, but I wouldn't
consider RFC 1034 part of IDNA2003.

> OTOH, we seems to agree that IDNA200x is only to obsolete RFC 3490.



More information about the Idna-update mailing list