-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/9/12 9:25 AM, SM wrote: > At 06:44 09-10-2012, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Preparation and >> Comparison of Internationalized Strings WG (precis) to consider >> the following document: - 'Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem >> Statement' <draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08.txt> as >> Informational RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive >> comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-10-23. >> Exceptionally, comments may be > > Section 2 could be dropped as it isn't that important to have RFC > 2119 in a problem statement. In Section 4: > > "For example, Stringprep is based on and profiles may use NFKC > [UAX15], while IDNA2008 mostly uses NFC [UAX15]." > > I suggest reviewing the references to see what background > information is required for the reader to understand "NFKC". At the least, spelling out these acronyms on first use would be helpful (e.g., "Unicode Normalization Form KC"). > In Section 6: > > "The above suggests the following guidance for replacing > Stringprep: o A stringprep replacement should be defined." > > That sounds obvious. > > The appendix is more informative than the rest of the draft. The > text in the Appendix B comes out as rough notes though. Indeed, that appendix consists of notes copied from a wiki page that the PRECIS WG used to collect the information. > In Section 5.3.3.2: > > "It is important to identify the willingness of the protocol-using > community to accept backwards-incompatible changes." > > The "tolerance for change" for several "protocol-using communities" > is rated as "not sure". I understand that it is difficult to get > definitive answers for these questions. It's doubtful that people > will choose "better support for different linguistic environments > against the potential side effects of backward incompatibility". > It seems that the WG has taken on an intractable problem. Your conclusion does not follow. Yes, it is true that we're not sure how willing some developer communities are to upgrade from Stringprep (based on Unicode 3.2) to PRECIS (version-agile, currently Unicode 6.1). However, we know that some developer communities are in fact willing to upgrade, and they have been more involved in the PRECIS WG. Furthermore, in general applications don't have a choice about what Unicode version is installed on the underlying system, so as time goes by Stringprep will become more and more problematic. There was strong agreement at the NEWPREP BoF to work on a common solution that all Stringprep-using protocols could re-use. The approach taken in the PRECIS framework specification is closely modelled on IDNA2008 and follows the recommendations from RFC 4690. If you are going to maintain that the PRECIS WG has taken on an intractable problem, then I think you're also arguing that the IDNABIS WG took on an intractable problem and that IDNA2008 failed to provide a viable solution to the shortcomings of IDNA2003 and the Nameprep profile of Stringprep. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB0UAEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwxggCfY5oXnRgP3UhOkZY3cu+1A/QX gK4AoN5kxFk+5T19loPFsXup5YhzimWy =LRQY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----