-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/09 2:57 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 10/27/09 5:06 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> >>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>> To me, the major remaining issue is internationalized addresses. I have >>>> reviewed the full suite of IDNAbis documents with an eye toward >>>> usage in >>>> XMPP, but that is only one aspect of i18n since we also need to deal >>>> with JID localparts and "resourceparts". Should we continue using >>>> Stringprep or take the IDNAbis approach of whitelisting certain >>>> characters? >>>> >>> I think the answer to this question would depend on StringPrep BOF >>> outcome. I was hoping to have it in Hiroshima, but it is delayed till >>> the following IETF. >>> >> Perhaps the XMPP WG can identify the issues that it thinks are >> important, for input to the Stringprep BoF. Given that XMPP is one of >> the main users of Stringprep, such an exercise might be useful for us >> and for people working on Stringprep / i18n. >> >> > I think this is a good idea. > As XMPP is conflicting with KRB-WG, I would like to suggest that we use > SASL slot to discuss this. Opinions? That sounds like a productive use of the time. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrqCZsACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzHNQCcCQxvoCD0pwT3/4SkxB+LbYgI wB0AnRcv8T5TjJuS6etT84FER6bu0NZr =Fs/0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.