Hi,
I apologize for the lateness of this. If my comments are a moot by now,
please feel free to ignore them.
I support publication of this, and think this version is pretty much
ready to go. I have a few editorial comments that might be worth
considering if there is an update.
- Abstract:
It would be nice if the abstract mentioned something about moving from
stringprep to the precis-framework.
- 3.4, third bullet: "… protocols that do not use SASL …"
should this paragraph include "and follow the recommendations in this
document" or "and that reuse this profile"? clause
— 6
The text refers to the 4013 as SASLPrep. But this draft is _also_
SASLPrep, isn't it? At least, it has SASLPrepbis in the short title. (Or
does the term saslprep get dropped entirely when the draft becomes an
RFC?)
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
