Hi Ben, thanks for the review! You've been a reviewing machine lately -
must be getting in shape for IESG duty. ;-)
On 2/25/15 2:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
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.
Agreed.
- 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
Well, sure. :) But we can't legislate for people who aren't reading this
specification (i.e., this isn't a BCP).
— 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?)
The latter. The original document name had "saslprepbis" in it and we
have't changed it in all this time.
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
