Re: [newprep] WG Review: Stringprep after IDNA2008 WG (newprep)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Le 10-05-19 09:40, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
On 5/18/10 12:32 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 10-05-18 14:27, Sam Hartman a écrit :
"Marc" == Marc Blanchet<marc.blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxx>   writes:

      Marc>   we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
      Marc>   restrict the scope to a specific set of documents to
      Marc>   review/update/... or do we keep some provision for other
      Marc>   documents coming in the stream that require "help" of the
      Marc>   newprep. I was arguing for the latter. To me, what you are
      Marc>   talking about is the latter. Obviously, some people wanted
the
      Marc>   charter to be restrictive in order to not go all over the
      Marc>   place, and I agree in principle... However, this work is
kinda
      Marc>   horizontal: touches many areas, so having a more large
view of
      Marc>   the problem space and documents that depends on this newprep
      Marc>   work would be very valuable to the working group
      Marc>   work. Therefore, I'm more for opening a bit the charter for
      Marc>   the cases like the ones you are talking about.

I'm happy with a restrictive charter so long as the work areas
identified today (including mine) are included.

my guess is that we most likely will discover other issues/newprep
potential "customers" as we go, that it might be useful to work on,
since they have a lot of similarities with the others official in the
charter.

Agreed.

therefore, more "opened" than closed charter.

We're trying to balance two things here: (1) we want to get as much
input as possible from current and potential customers of stringprep or
newprep/stringprepbis/whatever, but (2) we want to scope the WG tightly
enough that it doesn't have a mandate to work on "anything related to
internationalized strings".

agreed.


I'm happy drawing a
line in the sand and saying "here's what we'll touch first," so long as
people who bring up items now get included.  I'd probably be happier
with a reasonably open charter.

I'm not at all happy if the items I bring up or other similar items
brought up now are excluded.

In an email exchange with Marc and Alexey Melnikov last week, I proposed
adding the following paragraph to the charter:

    Although the group may provide advice regarding other technologies,
    it will prioritize work on the above-listed stringprep profiles and
    will take on additional tasks as official milestones only after
    rechartering.

We might want to broaden that a bit further to explicitly mention
seeking feedback from customers other than the existing stringprep profiles:

    Although the group will seek input from and may provide advice to
    "customers" working on other technologies, it will prioritize work
    on the above-listed stringprep profiles and will take on additional
    tasks as official milestones only after rechartering.


fine by me.


Marc.

Peter



--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]