Sam Hartman wrote:
"Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO <yaojk(_at_)cnnic(_dot_)cn> writes:
Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
Jiankang> prioritize the things. sometimes, the easier one first;
Jiankang> sometimes, the difficult one first.
Sure.
That's fine for the WG to do.
I don't think it is good to do in the charter without some fairness
criteria.
All items brought up by the time external review of the charter
concluded seems like a reasonable fairness criteria.
Putting the cutoff before that seems unreasonable.
Obviously, the WG can internally prioritize (and change its priorities)
within its normal administrative processes.
Jiankang> If peter's list is not ok for you, could you kindly give
Jiankang> us your list?
The list in the charter plus:
1) Considering Kerberos implications for SASLPREP revisions
Sam,
I think this is granted. I don't think this needs to be written into the
charter, especially considering that there is a good deal of overlap
between people active in Kerberos and SASL WGs.
2) Considering RFC 4282.
Do you consider RFC 4282 to be a stringprep profile? My quick scan of
the document (in particular Section 2.4) is not conclusive.
Both of these are stringprep issues. Kerberos has been intending to use
SASLPREP; if you revise SASLPREP without considering what happens for
Kerberos, then you'll just end up revising it yet again later.
NAIs seem to use more of the IDNA2003 rules than just the IDNA 2003
stringprep profile, but they do use that profile as well.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf