Re: FW: Policy MIB stringprep profile

Peter,

I am not aware of complete implementations so I do not have anything add.  I suspect some people on this list may have looked at implementation or attempted at least part of it.
/jon
On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>