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

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:06:04 -0500

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: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:58:05 -0500

The stringprep draft contains this unanswered question a the end of section
4:

"Patrik asks: Is not addition of unassigned codepoints regarded an update of
UAX15? This is relevant here."

Paul and Marc: Given that we're last-calling the document with that question
still in place, how would you answer it?

-Scott-

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:11:28 -0800

At 08:16 AM 1/29/2002 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>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.

there is no benefit in doing this.

naming an I-D to be within a working group is helpful during the working 
group process, to let people know what documents they MUST look at, if they 
wish to be current on working group activities.

Renaming this document might have been nice 6 months ago.  Not now.

The only things accomplished by changing the name now will be distraction 
and more delay.  Marc's response to you is a good indication of these 
effects.  He has diligently responded to your suggestion and the result is 
frankly confusing.  (That's not a criticism to his response but to the 
nature of dealing with your suggestion.)

The important thing to note is that there is not real benefit to making the 
name change, since it is the TITLE on the first page that is relevant to an 
rfc, NOT the I-D label.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:29:01 -0500

Fine, Dave, it's a little uncommon for a WG to be last-calling a document
that isn't a WG work item and I wanted to be sure that we weren't getting
into a process issue that would cause problems later.  I understand the
relationship to the nameprep draft and withdraw the suggestion given Marc's
explanation that the ADs are OK with the process.

-Scott- 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:11 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [idn] IDN WG Last Call: draft-hoffman-stringprep-00.txt
> 
> 

[snip]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:42:56 -0800

>explanation that the ADs are OK with the process.

On the theory that the IETF makes standards of documents that are not part 
of a working group -- and indeed it does do this -- then it is difficult to 
imagine a problem with that document being first put through a working 
group review and approval.

You folks get top marks for thinking of the issue and raising it, but we 
are almost assuredly safe waiting for the IESG to push back on this one.  I 
can't imagine that they will.

d/

----------