On 18 Sep 2017, at 20:24, Sam Whited wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017, at 18:18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Look, Sam, I agree that perhaps someday we can do better, but the
level
of effort to get there is significant and this working group does't
have
the energy to do that.
If there's no energy to make the change then I don't see any reason to
continue this discussion. It sounds like I'm disagreeing with
something
that's fundamental to the construction of PRECIS, so if the change
isn't
going to be made either way there's no point in holding publication of
the current drafts.
That is also my conclusion. You have raised good points, some were
discussed before, but if the end resolution is to redesign precis (such
as changing the normalization form which is a major redesign), then I
think we shall proceed with the publication and then some people like
you can start another round of revisions of the documents. As you may
know, the first iteration of this work was called Stringprep (RFC3454),
then we moved to the new IDNA framework based on Unicode rules which led
into Precis. At the time of Stringprep, we already knew some of its
weaknesses. Neither Stringprep or Precis is perfect. So I encourage you
to write a proposal and submit it as internet-draft (and advertise it to
this mailing list).
Marc.
Thanks for discussing it and helping me understand the problem more
fully.
—Sam
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
