[rfc-i] Substantial revision
stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue May 29 11:10:55 PDT 2012
On 5/29/12 12:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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).
We thought Stringprep was forever. It's not. But RFC 6122 doesn't create
an interim solution, it simply documents what is used today, which
6122bis will supersede. You said "RFC" (document), not "technical
solution" (protocol). There are many reasons why a document might be
More information about the rfc-interest