Stringprep Revision and Problem Statement for the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings (PRECIS)
draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-09

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    precis mailing list <precis@ietf.org>,
    precis chair <precis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement'
  (draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Preparation and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary 

  If a protocol expects to compare two strings and is prepared 
  only for those strings to be ASCII, then using Unicode 
  codepoints in those strings requires they be prepared somehow. 
  Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (here called 
  IDNA2003) defined and used Stringprep and Nameprep.  Other 
  protocols subsequently defined Stringprep profiles.  A new 
  approach different from Stringprep and Nameprep is used for 
  a revision of IDNA2003 (called IDNA2008).  Other Stringprep 
  profiles need to be similarly updated or a replacement of 
  Stringprep needs to be designed.  This document outlines the 
  issues to be faced by those designing a Stringprep replacement. 

Working Group Summary 

  The document records the consensus from discussion at the 
  NEWPREP BoF (IETF 77, March 2010) and the resulting PRECIS WG 
  regarding the problem to be solved in developing a replacement 
  for the Stringprep technology in application protocols other 
  than IDNA. There has not been controversy about the nature of 
  the problem to be solved, and consensus was not rough. 

Document Quality 

  The document has provided a clear basis for work on the 
  proposed PRECIS framework, and thus has served its purpose. 

Personnel 

  The Document Shepherd is Peter Saint-Andre. 
  The Responsible Area Director is Pete Resnick.

RFC Editor Note