FW: Policy MIB stringprep profile

Folks who participated in the Policy MIB work may be interested in this
discussion and can possibly help to answer the questions. 

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:35 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Marc Blanchet; [email protected]
Subject: Policy MIB stringprep profile

Gentlemen,

The IETF will hold a BoF at IETF 77 (in Anaheim the week of March 22)
about possible replacements for stringprep. I notice that you three
authored of one of the few stringprep profiles, for Policy MIB (RFC
4011). Marc Blanchet and I will be co-chairing the BoF, and we're
seeking input from authors of all stringprep profiles regarding the
possibility of pursuing new approaches to internationalized strings, as
has happened already for internationalized domain names through the
IDNAbis WG. A proposed charter for a "newprep" working group is here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/newprep/current/msg00000.html

See also subsequent discussion on the list:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/newprep

However, we don't necessarily wish to form yet another WG, and one
perfectly acceptable outcome of the BoF would be agreement to pursue any
needed work through independent submissions that update existing work in
this area.

As input to our thinking, would you perhaps have time to post to the
newprep list regarding industry experience with the Policy MIB profile?
We're especially interested in answers to the following questions:

* Approximately what percentage of relevant software has implemented and
deployed the profile?

* How have developers implemented the profile (e.g., by including or
wrapping an existing library such as libidn, or by writing an
independent implementation)?

* Have developers experienced any interoperability issues or other
problems with the profile?

* Might there be developer interest in migrating from the profile to an
approach that is less complex (e.g., by specifying a tiered model of
valid, disallowed, and unassigned characters as in IDNAbis) or more
flexible (e.g., by enabling the use of characters beyond Unicode 3.2 as
fixed by RFC 3454)?

[Alexey and Marc, feel free to modify or add to these questions.]

I plan to post to the newprep list soon regarding the XMPP experience
with stringprep, so perhaps you (or someone else in the network
management community) could take that as a bit of a template.

Any other feedback you might have would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/