[rfc-i] Substantial revision
touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 11:07:37 PDT 2012
On 5/29/2012 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/29/12 11:47 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> IMO, an RFC that is *intended* to be useful for less than 5 years is a
>> waste of time. Better that we have fewer RFCs that have the long view.
> I'm currently working on 6122bis (which will re-use the output of the
> PRECIS WG), and thus 6122 (which re-uses Stringprep) is intended to be
> useful for much less than 5 years. I suppose I'm wasting my time by
> trying to define a better approach to the handling of non-ASCII strings
> and identifiers in application protocols.
Certainly not, but IMO you're wasting time by creating an interim
solution, rather than one intended to be useful past a 5-year horizon
(if that's the case).
More information about the rfc-interest