Subject: RE: [idn] IDN WG Last Call: draft-hoffman-stringprep-00.txt

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:16:24 -0500

Marc,

A process point: this document is still written as an individual submission;
it's not listed as a WG I-D.  Is it within the WG's scope to conduct a last
call on the document?  Maybe it should be renamed and adopted by the WG
first.

-Scott- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [idn] IDN WG Last Call: draft-hoffman-stringprep-00.txt
> 
> 
> Title: Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")
> 
> This document describes a framework for preparing text 
> strings in order
> to increase the likelihood that string input and string 
> comparison work
> in ways that make sense for typical users throughout the world. The
> stringprep protocol is useful for protocol identifier values, company
> and personal names, internationalized domain names, and other text
> strings.
> 
> This document does not specify how protocols should prepare text
> strings. Protocols must create profiles of stringprep in 
> order to fully
> specify the processing options.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-stringprep-00.txt
> 
> This two weeks WG last call ends Feb 11th 2002, 23h59 GMT-5.
> 
> This document is for standards track.
> 
> Last call for this document is in conjunction with
> draft-ietf-idn-nameprep, Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Host
> Names. The original nameprep document was split into 2 documents:
> stringprep and nameprep.
> 
> 
> The co-chairs see a wg rough concensus on this document.
> Please send any proposed modification of the text to the wg 
> mailing list as
> well as to the wg co-chairs, stating clearly the text to be 
> modified and
> the new text.
> 
> Marc & James
>

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:05:21 -0500

-- mardi, janvier 29, 2002 08:16:24 -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
<[email-masked]> wrote/a écrit:

> Marc,
>
> A process point: this document is still written as an individual
> submission; it's not listed as a WG I-D.  Is it within the WG's scope to
> conduct a last call on the document?  Maybe it should be renamed and
> adopted by the WG first.

- good point.
- we have discussed about it with the ADs.
- the "old" version of nameprep was split in two documents:
  + stringprep, which is essentially a framework
  + and the current nameprep, which is a profile of stringprep.
  + the idea behind this split is to "standard reusability" ;-)). We feel 
(and actually see it) that this work would be useful for other working 
groups, but not necessarily in the exact same manner: so the rationale 
behind a framework document and profiles. One profiles for iSCSI is 
currently in the works, for example.
- the "old" version of nameprep was a wg document, so the splitted two 
should be.
- even if we don't see stringprep as wg document, there is another 
rationale:
 + nameprep references stringprep: this means that we (the ietf community 
in general) must forward the two documents to the IESG for simultaneous 
publication (as individual or wg document,doesn't matter).
 + stringprep contains a key discussion on versioning and other useful 
info, which must be read and implemented by implementors of idn.
- so even if we might fight about the fact that stringprep is a wg document 
or not, it is still important that all people in this wg review stringprep 
closely. This will get a much stronger case for publishing it as RFC. This 
is why we do a wg last call on it.  As you know, it happens often in the 
IETF that wg do wg last calls on documents that do not belong to their wg, 
just to have a much broader review. So this is a similar case.

- so the first goal here is to have this wg have a close review of 
stringprep. The fact that it is a wg document or not is not that important.

Marc.

>> well as to the wg co-chairs, stating clearly the text to be

------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:19:08 +0100 (CET)

> call on the document?  Maybe it should be renamed and adopted by the WG

The AD approved doing the WG last call on this document.
While nameprep is the first user of stringprep there are other WGs that
are looking at using stringprep.
So having the IDN WG review this document is necessary but there might
potentially be other WGs that need to review it as well.
So it didn't make sense to make the draft be "owned" solely by IDN.

  Erik

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:57:27 +0800

Just one additional note:

Whether a draft is tagged as draft-ietf-* or draft-<author>-*, they are
both internet draft. It is useful with an appropriate filename when
someone is search for wg work. Thus, it is norm to rename
draft-<author>-* name to draft-ietf-* when it become part of the wg
work.

However, it is not neccessary. A draft-<author>-* could still be a wg
draft so long the IETF Secretarial is informed. Since we doing the wg
last call, it is not neccessary to rename it...

All in the name... :-)

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: [idn] IDN WG Last Call: draft-hoffman-stringprep-00.txt

- good point.
- we have discussed about it with the ADs.
- the "old" version of nameprep was split in two documents:
  + stringprep, which is essentially a framework
  + and the current nameprep, which is a profile of stringprep.
  + the idea behind this split is to "standard reusability" ;-)). We
feel
(and actually see it) that this work would be useful for other working
groups, but not necessarily in the exact same manner: so the rationale
behind a framework document and profiles. One profiles for iSCSI is
currently in the works, for example.
- the "old" version of nameprep was a wg document, so the splitted two
should be.
- even if we don't see stringprep as wg document, there is another
rationale:
 + nameprep references stringprep: this means that we (the ietf
community
in general) must forward the two documents to the IESG for simultaneous
publication (as individual or wg document,doesn't matter).
 + stringprep contains a key discussion on versioning and other useful
info, which must be read and implemented by implementors of idn.
- so even if we might fight about the fact that stringprep is a wg
document
or not, it is still important that all people in this wg review
stringprep
closely. This will get a much stronger case for publishing it as RFC.
This
is why we do a wg last call on it.  As you know, it happens often in the
IETF that wg do wg last calls on documents that do not belong to their
wg,
just to have a much broader review. So this is a similar case.

- so the first goal here is to have this wg have a close review of
stringprep. The fact that it is a wg document or not is not that
important.

Marc.