Hi Mark,
Mark Lentczner wrote:
On May 19, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
In an email exchange with Marc and Alexey Melnikov last week, I proposed
adding ...
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.
Wait: That seems like a step back from the original charter. That seems to exclude any
work on a "stringprepbis"
IMHO, Stringprepbis is already covered by one of the milestones.
or other generally useful draft. If so, I'm left a bit in the cold.
No, the charter is just saying that if additional work is to be taken,
then the WG need to rechartered. This is mostly to keep the WG focused
on the main tasks. But rechartertering is not difficult, if the WG
decides that it is really needed.
It seems to me that while the WG should examine the particulars of the stringprep profiles under concern one by one - that wouldn't be the way we'd want to update them. Instead we'd want to either come up with a way to bring stringprep as a concept forward, or replace it with something similar, so that all the profiles under examination would have a consistent treatment in "updating". (Though I admit the likelihood of exceptions.) I don't think this kind of approach should be out of scope from the get go.
Right. This would be my preferred approach as well.
I don't think the proposed charter prevents the approach you suggest.
- Mark
P.S.: I've simply replied all, but should this discussion be just newprep only,
or do all those other lists want/need to be in on it?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf