Re: WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 3/25/14, 2:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/25/14, 1:58 PM, Matt Miller wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> I've finished reviewing draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11.  I mostly
>> think this document is ready to be published.  I think it deals
>> with the internationalization issues at hand as well as can be
>> expected.
>> 
>> However, in 3.2. Domainpart, I wonder about the following:
>> 
>> 4.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied to the
>> domainpart, such as those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]
>> or [RFC5895].
>> 
>> As far as I can tell, just about all of the suggested mappings
>> from RFC5895 are already required here.  But for any that are
>> not, I worry about the potential for interoperability problems if
>> say two servers communicating with each other apply different
>> mappings.  It might be best to strike this bullet from the list.
> 
> Yes, I think you are right that it would be best to remove this
> step. While updating draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis last night, I
> removed any mention of additional mappings from the password
> algorithm, for similar reasons.
> 
>> Less concerning to me is in 3.3. Localpart:
>> 
>> 2.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied, such as
>> those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].
>> 
>> I think there is less concern about interoperability problems
>> here, but I wonder if it is of any real utility.
> 
> In saslprepbis, we've changed the username text to read:
> 
> 3.  So-called additional mappings MAY be applied, such as mapping
> of delimiters (e.g., characters such as '@', ':', '/', '+', and
> '-') and special handling of certain characters or classes of 
> characters (e.g., mapping of non-ASCII spaces to ASCII space or 
> mapping of control characters to nothing); the PRECIS mappings 
> document [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] describes such mappings in more
> detail.
> 
> However, that kind of mapping doesn't apply to XMPP localparts
> because we profile the PRECIS IdentifierClass, which prohibits
> punctuation and space characters outside the ASCII7 range, control
> characters, etc. So IMHO it's unnecessary for localparts.
> 

Agreed.

>> The similar language in 3.4. Resourcepart is not concerning to me
>> at all; there are some cases where additional mappings are
>> desirable (e.g., MUC nicknames), and I think the language makes
>> it clear that anything beyond "it's opaque" is to be approached
>> with care.
> 
> Agreed, although I'd change the bullet to mostly or entirely match
> what I added to draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis.
> 

That works for me.


- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email protected] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMeZKAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1cdUIALStFgXG1uuizVckpgGMpalQ
WKc9WU5OcIdvUBk9NuPjHP8J18wx9nvKCqpEp+yN4CznvurF/g8gJZxZsRdBD0mV
HtO8OxhqqH3v0q+CQmWoGxx9VSmFzgR+4BKXbjsJrWec2BU8oSpouagk01moFJIe
F46ZeVsU+TZYhxxGrnvnljsUEv7YFHevkeFO6cd22Jo35ikU/NjkBLMEEpR2+9mk
Xw3N0eNmkucZ8xILVVtRbLIq3L6AcZNo0Gr3MeKI/SSxcJYm4bBYxnnQa3jOZJXA
WkvnGnUEECIQ58hu60DHmH60HS2OHH7WwfPvutwvf8cBJmnVx4AWP69MtnRH+is=
=3whQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----