[idn] nameprep vs. stringprep

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

Folks,

Finally the AD has completed the review of the 4 documents.
There are some comments from this review that I will send to
the mailing list shortly (I have to finish typing them up).

Once these comments (mostly editorial clarifications) are resolved
one way or another I think we will be ready for the IETF-wide last call.

But there is one high-level comment which might seem like a significant
change but in fact should be just a case of moving text around. This
has to do with the split between what goes in the nameprep vs. stringprep
document. Currently the code point tables are in nameprep. This means that
when non-IDN WG protocols want to define a stringprep profile they are
likely to end up copying most of those tables (e.g. the large tables
with casefold+NFKC). Thus we will avoid a lot of redundant tables in RFCs
if those tables are placed in the stringprep document instead of in nameprep.
Then such profiles could just reference those tables.
This should not have any impact on the IDN solution/protocol.
(But I have't personally verified that it is just a movement of text between
the drafts.)

So Paul will submit updated nameprep and stringprep documents to the I-D
directory so that you all can verify that this didn't change anything.

  Erik