[rfc-i] Substantial revision
touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 11:45:27 PDT 2012
On 5/29/2012 11:41 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/29/12 12:19 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> We thought Stringprep was forever.
>> Then you didn't create 6122 with the intent of generating a -bis within
>> 5 years.
> Speaking as the chair of the xmpp WG, we *absolutely* created 6122 with the
> intent that it would have a -bis immediately. This happened roughly at the
> same time as the formation of the precís WG, and it was the only way we
> could figure out to move the core XMPP specs forward in the face of known
> inadequacies of our i18n framework.
That's a fine reason for a draft, but not an RFC IMO.
> If it takes us 5 years to get precís done and therefore 6122bis, I'll see
> that as a failure of both the xmpp and precís WGs.
> We're *way* off-topic in this part of the discussion now.
More information about the rfc-interest