From nobody Sun Mar 1 01:23:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320201A8893 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:23:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.298 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0C9_ng6c2dh for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp [117.104.133.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83D61A0385 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:23:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.61]) by off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t217VesX012378; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:31:40 +0900 Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE233180060; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:31:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (unknown [172.23.4.14]) by off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B764118005F; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:31:39 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:31:39 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20150301.163139.258128820.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> To: precis@ietf.org, peter@andyet.net, alexey.melnikov@isode.com From: Yoshiro YONEYA In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1690-7.5.0.1018-21364.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.494-5.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--2.494-5.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: GnNqJBi8oAdhFLyjeksJVco3MPo0IsVYO4rmf5nWGLbtkF1BQZiRHVx1 DGz0NkaxunGo4NiqbreEbMcLh7bnMn91kCM1cRsWr3X9gdfSLWVAq6/y5AEOOqOct+CQcl5Zo8W MkQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuD/nz+8auWhzsvUPdmSpWNqKxYawtCSAD+GANVBCTxXN0C1sQRfQzEHEQd G7H66TyHEqm8QYBtMOnTfJpPA7fFSwehy7W5X3J/F4tG44zkgOBNpMPlYPPXvW0WCSEZyqq/hFg wjMWQ1Y2wyBPYm+GAJ3rQn7rybTFBXN2aNKAHeilExlQIQeRG0= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] Belated WGLC comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 09:23:25 -0000 Dear Peter-san, Alexey-san, I apologize my too late comment. First of all, the document looks fine for me. I support publication of it. o Following is very minor comment. 4.1 Definition There is typo of "FreeformClass" in the comment of password ABNF. Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA From nobody Sun Mar 1 03:08:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D6C1A8894 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 03:08:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.298 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dA2vnMWADAey for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 03:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp [117.104.133.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4CB1A19EC for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 03:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.61]) by off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t217W0dn012382; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:32:00 +0900 Received: from off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12CC180060; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:31:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (unknown [172.23.4.14]) by off-sendsmg01.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE1F18005F; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:31:59 +0900 (JST) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:31:59 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20150301.163159.233680825.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> To: precis@ietf.org, peter@andyet.net From: Yoshiro YONEYA In-Reply-To: <41E08260-ED66-429A-8D74-FEA257C71264@nostrum.com> References: <41E08260-ED66-429A-8D74-FEA257C71264@nostrum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1690-7.5.0.1018-21364.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.283-5.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--3.283-5.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: T3hsd5K8wIBhFLyjeksJVco3MPo0IsVYO4rmf5nWGLbtkF1BQZiRHVx1 DGz0NkaxunGo4NiqbreEbMcLh7bnMn91kCM1cRsWr3X9gdfSLWU1G/3YRqERwdqqof+gfD6RlS9 xDwj9R9j5XzK6Xke27cEdssKLE6AKx0rLCvrztpmeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCdcD5PxhxmQMMOh s5fPU0hfAXcWxgcD5yonjiqHHQGKrT6JDACkKf2xXQP/3qeEFD3QfwsVk0UbsIoUKaF27lxTDPi Sk3QOrqI5zFpluSYru0ZeCRbMTu2Kim6ptmjQAt+qq45sg6O+9pmE2TDow7JdcnXtrj/Xnpu6oV 96NJftLgnyxzkIMI/VyjUeSvBusgfOD99LkK1AGwRO2EWNIvsAVqCaCNjrvynqg/VrSZEiM= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-nickname-15 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:08:25 -0000 Dear Peter-san, I apologize my too late comment. First of all, the document looks fine for me. I support publication of it. Followings are minor comment. Table 2 There are two "10". The latter must be "11". In # 10(11), zero-length string is listed as violation but it is not explicitly defined in section 2. Like SASLprepbis, the phrase "A nickname MUST NOT be zero bytes in length. This rule is to be enforced after any normalization and mapping of code points." in section 2 will be more clear. Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA From nobody Mon Mar 2 08:21:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4899E1A1A8D for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:21:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ke6F15gbY68I for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B73B11A0046 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so49131863iec.5 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:21:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+UrMILUuS9qsWAORCJnBC1JflrEhJYP7oO3bGgzEB+M=; b=Vaem3eS/xnZXGbEFKdDa79HdV6GIKsG6yXiC5QV22fQSUMkaKHlYnf6c6kJjUujU3i R5CMr6qyyUU4wk96DRuuB0o5SPk8uikAonrZOg2zl8gemhGhx9MRyLMzStMftcRsUgqv rQRTsU95XXRnwsihZJPkOCQGfGkSqNkorayh1vvwjkgRJutMNdgXUtpZVnofXNg45qbC rMAM8E6WJxOyBiQ6e0hUG750mKUUNLEaff5NyTiJhUtvgsL3IsRHGkmPGfCKI86uFLYg ndlKAbVg/2rGcz2RFx26+uuWp6DTzTPWEWmgmh1PpOiYmtVOS3meQsqk1vsGivTQMBd8 aa4g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgQQr1ZoKtiKi1eoMadsJICwmwzo/MElOmFJ3qQWQvqQjhRFKJ44KYyIKvMCNGTRhnqvND X-Received: by 10.50.25.225 with SMTP id f1mr23131474igg.29.1425313287000; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z29sm8159378ioi.36.2015.03.02.08.21.25 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:21:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 09:21:25 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= , IETF PRECIS WG References: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:21:32 -0000 On 2/27/15 2:35 PM, ⌘ Matt Miller wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > My apologies for the tardiness of these comments. > > Overall, I think this document is ready for publication. I agree with > the comments that Ben Campbell sent earlier (and Peter's responses). > My only outstanding concern: > > * [MINOR] - The reference to UNICODE in this document is to version > 6.3, while precis-framework references version 7.0 and text in section > 6.1 mentions version 7.0. Is the difference intentional here, or a > case of missing a reference update? I'm guessing it's a missed > reference ... Hi Matt, thanks for the feedback. We had some discussion months ago (IIRC occasioned by comments from John Klensin) about citing a particular version when necessary (e.g., 3.2 or 6.3 or 7.0) but otherwise having a generic pointer to the Unicode Standard when we're talking about the technology in general, rather than a particular version. Let me send a note to the RFC Editor about this and see what they might recommend. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 08:27:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CCD1A1ADC for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrMKdPItNNXI for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:26:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A39F1A1B80 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:26:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by iecrl12 with SMTP id rl12so49171757iec.2 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:26:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SyPj3q9sK6VfHcAgcK4diATTB+uRWBimfLeaicFzIFE=; b=PHgTu1obG2Hsa7C9kgWLxFh3FgFbx9KnUexbkKhuasC0U85t2a7tnyII7J7OZK0J8l C6BF30e3Gmp7YMASLJLzs26uqwT4JTtr9bAFBUOwcUfcYHlEYXg+T2Ely5+3I9bzTjIf kJpmqsoc+v5WkvG/HKydwA0+IOH5/EDq44LXImVTRh5E579RMrVNs4E/KsBo1HDWrsNV H3aoxoKOIWiEmgX6gNUOHVXhpk+EOfj0NwNxIcI1hH0Xf87gGUMgpkMT2EcFwiKFQBGB d4JdJgvRqi0/zMNiZ/iiRHgn6g9+KP1cK2BBU1d0kz4y81F1dyS0pbbx2Af/UYRPY6gl msIw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUVlFJjuF/kZNPHelpJgVcDpivVlCZonf54w/hVuKhejuHcZcTPxsvA1APvM1DX5AALU+B X-Received: by 10.107.12.167 with SMTP id 39mr38111567iom.71.1425313618539; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a31sm8164162ioj.42.2015.03.02.08.26.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:26:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F48F50.7000708@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 09:26:56 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yoshiro YONEYA , precis@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com References: <20150301.163139.258128820.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20150301.163139.258128820.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] Belated WGLC comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:27:00 -0000 On 3/1/15 12:31 AM, Yoshiro YONEYA wrote: > Dear Peter-san, Alexey-san, > > I apologize my too late comment. > > First of all, the document looks fine for me. I support > publication of it. > o > Following is very minor comment. > > 4.1 Definition > > There is typo of "FreeformClass" in the comment of > password ABNF. Noted, thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 08:32:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7101A1BA7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:32:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dk9JX7uATlAc for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC1D31A1B23 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so18680448igb.3 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cdtDAA9E/CGvvFt3zYupJAdmiZoQ4IGxjNLX5nnYwLE=; b=YNz7w1yjumPVSODgUV+nYkV52W50DRnZJt+6vT1kdh9IzMcLFbzbPfYBjPNiyvs1X9 JhYtF+f1a1yclx3phE33l1hThgJEU1wYwpgAYAmyLCZqeiMu+B+St5YahHBviQMqiDyi 4F2MfTix7Y7l/DSYLBAzNhPyz3rd45diCB2+KihU2UNJ/6BFOV3w2ip60ornlFrj/Ag9 umWG6+yl4G/bcXYFGt05PrtqOxozNOnmNqxRQsvwhYkUPMikx+7AT2HxBcFQkfm2m3cd OAJofgELiSxGuIarBnJuaeg+vjvriIQIn+beZKOxfHmdWuBhCoQKwj1IKzdjFpW1U3UQ OSMg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnl9rN0tRPxraxYzxQVD/DH/H+eUHhbS1z3Piv4ufnUUMMkgKuh4uksqiBgjWvisXsP1oea X-Received: by 10.50.138.68 with SMTP id qo4mr21941712igb.33.1425313944199; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qs3sm7170139igb.8.2015.03.02.08.32.23 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:32:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F49096.2080101@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 09:32:22 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yoshiro YONEYA , precis@ietf.org References: <41E08260-ED66-429A-8D74-FEA257C71264@nostrum.com> <20150301.163159.233680825.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20150301.163159.233680825.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-nickname-15 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:32:26 -0000 On 3/1/15 12:31 AM, Yoshiro YONEYA wrote: > Dear Peter-san, > > I apologize my too late comment. > > First of all, the document looks fine for me. I support > publication of it. > > Followings are minor comment. > > Table 2 > > There are two "10". The latter must be "11". Correct. :-) > In # 10(11), zero-length string is listed as violation but > it is not explicitly defined in section 2. Like > SASLprepbis, the phrase "A nickname MUST NOT be zero bytes > in length. This rule is to be enforced after any > normalization and mapping of code points." in section 2 > will be more clear. Agreed, I'll fix that. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 09:11:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90ECB1A1BF3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:11:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sMPkYGQldhgn for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:11:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2FB31A1BB3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:11:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1004; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425316313; x=1426525913; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=NIbfoQyqi8m4zr4i6s1xkWwjayF4MO5wVQ42VZ99F0M=; b=Lm4Hf+R4VsSHqmOoQ0q3aBj6Qt9X336scHwAN2Kn39ZFKo5pJpDVbkGk 41gqpY9h3dM/VymGoEu06GKFtb5s5q8uKCQhKp6O1zqkwN/bozP1bq0vU 6TRpAbV/iBB+r1Lj5ySfUzx8FsXn5nUY+wxDhOLPH0uVbayYO2pSgApy+ Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DWBgA4mfRU/5tdJa1agwJSXoMGuEGFcIceTQEBAQEBAXyEOQ8BRTYCBRYLAgsDAgECATUWDQYCAQGIK61Jj0iZLAEBAQcBAQEBARkEgSGRToFDBYpcgx+FXYVnhmyMbiOCAR2BcE+BRH8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,676,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="111135071" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2015 17:11:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t22HBqbX030862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:11:52 GMT Received: from [10.129.24.63] (10.129.24.63) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (173.37.183.76) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:11:52 -0600 Message-ID: <54F499D7.8010100@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:11:51 -0700 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF PRECIS WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.129.24.63] Archived-At: Subject: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-nickname-15 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:11:58 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 My apologies for the tardiness of my comments. Overall I think this document is ready for publication. The only thing I will point out is the reference to Unicode, which matches -precis-saslprepbis. I'm sure Peter will apply the same diligence here as with the other PRECIS documents. Thanks again for the work! - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU9JnXAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO18p0H/1YJVW+594Wp2J9Qm9KUH2RP Ia6vbnYCok3xemRzalD7CrUwk5qMIIBboYDPnSYApYScabj2J/qmMXzDHCdkNpAG poW9swCN/lIyPt8dKf4vzjAZPOPVTfsKSQ64QI4qz7CreN0gSem02cB7lUQ6t0GS 60rdLInAtq7GS/XQN6TYPbFYM8bKMSe/vdvSnzXfxDzG5ptW2V91bq7ifXx6O6AA R8HF4jSivmscR+1uJr1FOnHY/evH1LWYOadUa9z/o45gO9dOxF30FjPD8E7kv22R jGs2rEiurseseUNNJf09dNUb4Ut81Q9UhZRdaS4Wb6Gg0DGjryx6G2Gh3v4vHys= =DYnF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Mar 2 11:20:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AE11A8925 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:20:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZO6otRBbjzQ for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA96C1A88F0 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YSVtL-0002EO-1b; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:20:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:20:29 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=8C=98_Matt_Miller?= , IETF PRECIS WG Message-ID: <3B571203A91A79C0943BE001@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> References: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:20:46 -0000 --On Monday, March 02, 2015 09:21 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> * [MINOR] - The reference to UNICODE in this document is to >> version 6.3, while precis-framework references version 7.0 >> and text in section 6.1 mentions version 7.0. Is the >> difference intentional here, or a case of missing a reference >> update? I'm guessing it's a missed reference ... > > Hi Matt, thanks for the feedback. In fairness to Peter and other PRECIS doc authors, this process has dragged out for a rather long time, with Unicode evolving from, IIR, 6.0 to 7.0 during that period. To complicate things further (and again IIR -- I don't have time to spend on this), references to sections of 6.3 are meaningless because the core spec wasn't reissued for 6.3 -- it was the 6.2 core spec plus code point changes. Section numbers do periodically change when moving from one version to another, so Section N.M of 6.0 may not have the same number (or, in a few cases, even the same structure within the Section) in 7.0. To make this more exciting, the final formatted version of the 7.0 Core spec was not published until December; at least in theory, section numbers could have changed up to that time. On the other hand, if any of the statements normatively referenced by any PRECIS spec have actually changed substantively, regardless of how they are phrased and the numbered sections in which they appear, then we are in big trouble that goes far beyond any discussions of just what should be referenced. > We had some discussion months ago (IIRC occasioned by comments > from John Klensin) about citing a particular version when > necessary (e.g., 3.2 or 6.3 or 7.0) but otherwise having a > generic pointer to the Unicode Standard when we're talking > about the technology in general, rather than a particular > version. Yes. And the above, and the hope that the index to the Unicode Standard is adequate, are the reasons for that. All things being equal, I'd prefer that all of the PRECIS specs reference the same version of Unicode, but that is just to make things more convenient for readers. > Let me send a note to the RFC Editor about this and see what > they might recommend. Good plan. Trying to tune it on this list is probably sub-optimal and it is their job to spot things like this and sort them out. Obviously, feel free to share the above with them and/or to pull me into the conversation if I can help. best, john From nobody Mon Mar 2 13:53:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85441A89AA for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:53:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIutRcqEONCL for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3C731A89A3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:53:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so51840283ieb.7 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:53:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Umf1gCYa1Yl3AgyzoD8d1klvnkw6PL0/yAC1Pk8oyds=; b=UPUmJtP4TzJ4lcGgGR0qZUylVvdPwnoldFZOwoGo/DmfiH6PW/GD3PdZZ5Q497MLxB 9ejonnGLo3+gH+darpK1fi3MY6yNqG/WjZLzp7Wb2z1EHaa1VrbPJIaLUvdD4ZgfgTqd 2sZcOXDWI6VU6DaxyVBSphhWnyLUvx51t77CTbuoZciRCpRotjMab3WEndJNAHy2TXB7 pUEemGoJ4dqmo/p+ujmoWftxzCGA6MzYx+ed8CdkLcDk2wsHb/w0d9fx4KgNrpfWWa+n vZ+pNDqEXxlc0/NV5sOIYchmCVs6hB3jocz+2A8GxFQoRUrBHgnPSgLBbwJJ/e0J2TmX vCXg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnproKntpb2JK9LuXeBCfSw9OCoofV4qJAa3FkJKs5Y4f+LXkZ5g3z7aHOyGDx7VIBKpBBP X-Received: by 10.42.29.133 with SMTP id r5mr32925842icc.17.1425333190332; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:53:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mi3sm7632207igb.13.2015.03.02.13.53.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:53:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F4DBC4.6080506@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:53:08 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin , =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= , IETF PRECIS WG References: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> <3B571203A91A79C0943BE001@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3B571203A91A79C0943BE001@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:53:13 -0000 On 3/2/15 12:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, March 02, 2015 09:21 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet > wrote: > >>> * [MINOR] - The reference to UNICODE in this document is to >>> version 6.3, while precis-framework references version 7.0 >>> and text in section 6.1 mentions version 7.0. Is the >>> difference intentional here, or a case of missing a reference >>> update? I'm guessing it's a missed reference ... >> >> Hi Matt, thanks for the feedback. > > In fairness to Peter and other PRECIS doc authors, this process > has dragged out for a rather long time, with Unicode evolving > from, IIR, 6.0 to 7.0 during that period. To complicate things > further (and again IIR -- I don't have time to spend on this), > references to sections of 6.3 are meaningless because the core > spec wasn't reissued for 6.3 -- it was the 6.2 core spec plus > code point changes. > > Section numbers do periodically change when moving from one > version to another, so Section N.M of 6.0 may not have the same > number (or, in a few cases, even the same structure within the > Section) in 7.0. To make this more exciting, the final > formatted version of the 7.0 Core spec was not published until > December; at least in theory, section numbers could have changed > up to that time. > > On the other hand, if any of the statements normatively > referenced by any PRECIS spec have actually changed > substantively, regardless of how they are phrased and the > numbered sections in which they appear, then we are in big > trouble that goes far beyond any discussions of just what should > be referenced. > >> We had some discussion months ago (IIRC occasioned by comments >> from John Klensin) about citing a particular version when >> necessary (e.g., 3.2 or 6.3 or 7.0) but otherwise having a >> generic pointer to the Unicode Standard when we're talking >> about the technology in general, rather than a particular >> version. > > Yes. And the above, and the hope that the index to the Unicode > Standard is adequate, are the reasons for that. All things > being equal, I'd prefer that all of the PRECIS specs reference > the same version of Unicode, but that is just to make things > more convenient for readers. > >> Let me send a note to the RFC Editor about this and see what >> they might recommend. > > Good plan. Trying to tune it on this list is probably > sub-optimal and it is their job to spot things like this and > sort them out. Obviously, feel free to share the above with > them and/or to pull me into the conversation if I can help. I have heard back from the RFC Editor and they note that several recent RFCs use this as a citation: [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", . I think that works fine in most instances. I do have a question about how to handle pointers to particular chapters, such as: using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in Chapter 3 of the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] As John notes, chapter numbers might change. If we want to provide a pointer to a particular chapter, we could modify such text like so: using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] (at the time of this writing, the algorithm is specified in Chapter 3 of [UNICODE7.0]) However, I'm not sure if we really need to point to a particular chapter in a particular version. Peter From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:42:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31111A8A80; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WWoNrlsvUqEa; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29C91A8A79; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302224204.22798.61409.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:42:04 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:42:07 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Working Group of the IETF. Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Alexey Melnikov Filename : draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2015-03-02 Abstract: This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings representing usernames and passwords. The methods specified in this document provide a more sustainable approach to the handling of internationalized usernames and passwords than the previous approach, known as SASLprep (RFC 4013) and based on Stringprep (RFC 3454). This document obsoletes RFC 4013. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:42:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C931A8A85; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r9TMHkMGhH5m; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC7B1A8A7C; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302224204.22798.48926.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:42:04 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:42:12 -0000 A new version (-14) has been submitted for draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:42:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7E41A8A7E; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mAOU22deGk5J; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90F81A8A94; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302224213.23843.28256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:42:13 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:42:29 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Working Group of the IETF. Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2015-03-02 Abstract: This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings representing nicknames. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-nickname/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:42:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D841A8A84; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjBKvL4mYpI8; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB96F1A8A96; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:42:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: , , , , , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150302224213.23843.12021.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:42:13 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:42:34 -0000 A new version (-16) has been submitted for draft-ietf-precis-nickname: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-nickname/ Diff from previous version: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. IETF Secretariat. From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:43:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8011A8A76 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:43:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t158maEPPd1z for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FFA91A8A61 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by ierx19 with SMTP id x19so52331132ier.3 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GG7+vx9NeVwuMfGZ10Y2V5du9nkht2wjMqH0n+06Yx0=; b=XlON5xeph80k+/MZcq1yzMhi+oclljb/Y9rEfXc7SsTnLMAb9AepYC1wCAK5G012/1 DAVEPraUy9SqMn4AHizp0z6N8IGTClvxEmgb0aJYhe7dbdEv/+5Ds+qqhNpCOw3+z/x3 JM7o4Jan3VLNF5By2+QSiuy+KYoRirpaaibpYKiHr39bLy5tesbVj4cfv67IkAhyiPaR W09xwTNT/7v9vm3VYNEpuTk0jM3ozyCKK7I1fTkB7UJ6DAnkm9eQ41zvYzSEwZxe8GRL gtw6tB/116FPpitUmkWLe3q4SS8EumQAXjmID84NwfSVnGm6MPMRoxbPiG93l2Nn5A95 nerQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndDdMnNexaw3Y0OnBUfpHj/neNM1OCDL3MGakZZtFQRG2abhXSGGGg9J9/1W3gVBQ0vYs6 X-Received: by 10.50.49.43 with SMTP id r11mr24919537ign.18.1425336216779; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f142sm8738285ioe.3.2015.03.02.14.43.35 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F4E797.8080306@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:43:35 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: precis@ietf.org References: <20150302224204.22798.61409.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302224204.22798.61409.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:43:39 -0000 Incorporated late WGLC feedback. On 3/2/15 3:42 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords > Authors : Peter Saint-Andre > Alexey Melnikov > Filename : draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2015-03-02 > > Abstract: > This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings > representing usernames and passwords. The methods specified in this > document provide a more sustainable approach to the handling of > internationalized usernames and passwords than the previous approach, > known as SASLprep (RFC 4013) and based on Stringprep (RFC 3454). > This document obsoletes RFC 4013. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-14 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis > From nobody Mon Mar 2 14:44:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271D91A8A76 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7ZHVUUoSOvx for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E5101A8A61 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so20067718igb.0 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Z2PKTRPfl2v1u9Dn53sVwnYV51zM+G4C0rGIjgP22k=; b=XCb6LVDXpPa1+2U2KDMwjxCdIuk4R5wA8TA4irLwofTYiUuiR/7vWJ09WlCb74WBAu bAxtFv2G+cCpm6VACCQiYlPlXYyv/ng3khw9Bpp0RMI6f0rFF40+9nCtMBjIQCwgugUj n2zEzX2WY703PSyCu5ooQJjupkH79IOimXwe40WVlEtycOIDpYCDnUDNgQ91SAIeCgNF ZutNvvkJrFSHSghyNIRvpD6W367DwroGAr1qsPv/eBBXAod3tY2NpIRM+bNJO2tJMhQG YD01h49XeF++Nj8xRo/WkITBEPrn3raoLmakq6Lkm7NEwD0uWPoY1idg7eqGg500qzv3 UCjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnaRAhBQN6OYsDbyx2aykEqXIAQ3iEMpBGa5CNCiln3WtF/i2Ts8v67sGBok/CaaPWbIh3 X-Received: by 10.42.216.14 with SMTP id hg14mr33823803icb.90.1425336250043; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm8722769ioe.31.2015.03.02.14.44.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F4E7B8.1090007@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:44:08 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: precis@ietf.org References: <20150302224213.23843.28256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150302224213.23843.28256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:44:12 -0000 More late feedback. On 3/2/15 3:42 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames > Author : Peter Saint-Andre > Filename : draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2015-03-02 > > Abstract: > This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings > representing nicknames. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-nickname/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-nickname-16 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis > From nobody Mon Mar 2 18:53:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0511A0119 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:53:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y5Wat-4XpOrC for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1451A0130 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B601632E581; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:52:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 43f7_1c1e_6ffb261a_4dc2_4e6b_9853_85c686e34656; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:52:51 +0900 Received: from [133.2.210.64] (unknown [133.2.210.64]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ED1BF53A; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:52:51 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <54F52204.4070705@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:52:52 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , John C Klensin , =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= , IETF PRECIS WG References: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> <3B571203A91A79C0943BE001@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F4DBC4.6080506@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <54F4DBC4.6080506@andyet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:53:39 -0000 On 2015/03/03 06:53, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/2/15 12:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> --On Monday, March 02, 2015 09:21 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet >> wrote: >>> We had some discussion months ago (IIRC occasioned by comments >>> from John Klensin) about citing a particular version when >>> necessary (e.g., 3.2 or 6.3 or 7.0) but otherwise having a >>> generic pointer to the Unicode Standard when we're talking >>> about the technology in general, rather than a particular >>> version. This is of course exactly the right thing to do. W3C does the same, and it's even called out in the Character Model spec (see http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C063). > I have heard back from the RFC Editor and they note that several recent > RFCs use this as a citation: > > [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", > . > > I think that works fine in most instances. Yes indeed. > I do have a question about how to handle pointers to particular > chapters, such as: > > using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in Chapter 3 > of the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] > > As John notes, chapter numbers might change. If we want to provide a > pointer to a particular chapter, we could modify such text like so: > > using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in the Unicode > Standard [UNICODE] (at the time of this writing, the algorithm > is specified in Chapter 3 of [UNICODE7.0]) > > However, I'm not sure if we really need to point to a particular chapter > in a particular version. Yes. If we do, I suggest two things: - Make the section number more specific, if possible (in the case at hand, it would be section 3.13). - Make the text shorter, if possible: using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] (e.g. Chapter 3.13 of [UNICODE7.0]) But in many cases, it is necessary to look at more than one chapter, so it may be better to not give just one exact pointer. Regards, Martin. From nobody Mon Mar 2 20:54:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6651A1A04 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:53:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.411 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73Cb4cuaOMxP for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D911A1A02 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YSeq7-0003kD-Cl; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:53:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:53:46 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=8C=98_Matt_Miller?= , IETF PRECIS WG Message-ID: <7AA2348B47DE94E01A201CE3@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <54F4DBC4.6080506@andyet.net> References: <54F0E329.9000009@cisco.com> <54F48E05.9090806@andyet.net> <3B571203A91A79C0943BE001@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F4DBC4.6080506@andyet.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] (More) Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 04:54:00 -0000 --On Monday, March 02, 2015 14:53 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >... > I have heard back from the RFC Editor and they note that > several recent RFCs use this as a citation: > > [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", > . > > I think that works fine in most instances. The condition for its working fine is that we be confident that whatever text we are referring to be stable, at least in substance and to the extent to which we need it. IIR, formal stability rules apply to code tables, properties, and relationships, not sections of text, so it is hard to be confident about any very specific statements. If one does not have that confidence and does not have a high level of skill in predicting the future, one is probably better off referencing a version and making statements about likely stability, not using "latest". > I do have a question about how to handle pointers to > particular chapters, such as: > > using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in > Chapter 3 > of the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] > > As John notes, chapter numbers might change. If we want to > provide a pointer to a particular chapter, we could modify > such text like so: > > using Unicode Default Case Folding as defined in the > Unicode > Standard [UNICODE] (at the time of this writing, the > algorithm > is specified in Chapter 3 of [UNICODE7.0]) That is more or less what I've done in other places. > However, I'm not sure if we really need to point to a > particular chapter in a particular version. With additional qualifications about being able to predict the future, if the need granularity is that of a Chapter, one might use the chapter name and let the reader find the TOC or Index in a particular version. At the risk of introducing an immediate counterexample to illustrate why one needs to be careful about this, TUS 5.0 has [...] 7 European Alphabetic Scripts 8 Middle Eastern Scripts 9 South Asian Scripts-1 10 South Asian Scripts-2 11 Southeast Asian Scripts [...] while TUS 7.0 has [...] 7 Europe-I: Modern and Liturgical Scripts 8 Europe-II: Ancient and Other Scripts 9 Middle East-I: Modern and Liturgical Scripts 10 Middle East-II Ancient Scripts 11 Cuneiform and Hieroglyphs 12 South and Central Asia-I: Official Scripts of India 13 South and Central Asia-II: Other Modern Scripts 14 South and Central Asia-III: Ancient Scripts 15 South and Central Asia-IV: Other Historic Scripts 16 Southeast Asia [...] These new category breakdowns are not just subdivisions of existing material with renumbering but required moving some material around. There are also some new chapters that have no obvious correspondence to chapters or parts of chapters in earlier versions. I won't try to guess at future Unicode plans, but note, for example, that the new Chapter 12 is unstable because shifting political tides in India have resulted in gradual increases in the number of official languages. john From nobody Tue Mar 3 09:27:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3FD1AC3D0 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:27:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9k9Jc-qIiN5 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from waldorf.isode.com (ext-bt.isode.com [217.34.220.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9B61ABC75 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:27:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1425403627; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=pdk8B7TlUO3NlFmRyXvKUAJx1H+yNA38pOH4EKiM488=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=DKWIO77cg2M0atnmm1DeeFbwOQHDGn2C+eRcee1WEUFCrnnAZJx1fPFS7K9I4CrV1U6369 6WN8KFJ+3LE1F5H9jme1ma8Ow5F4dM6pzJW86eqterRlHo/OdCJxo52hF8qUCFyUxyHz2h aWecMAwG0yGB8jUtVkQEeGWjWca7P4o=; Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:27:07 +0000 Message-ID: <54F5EEE5.6070701@isode.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:27:01 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 To: Bjoern Hoehrmann , precis@ietf.org References: <932dealvpln2o93rjru14adhk6lqp63184@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> In-Reply-To: <932dealvpln2o93rjru14adhk6lqp63184@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] PRECIS breadcrumbs X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:27:10 -0000 Hi, On 20/02/2015 01:56, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > Hi, > > Yesterday I tried to find out if the latest draft for HTTP Basic auth- > entication allows colons in passwords. I eventually gave up; what I did: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06 has > > For the password, recipients MUST support all characters defined in > the "OpaqueString" profile defined in in Section 4.2 of [PRECIS]. > > Went to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13 and > when I searched for `OpaqueString` in the document the first hit beyond > the ToC is: > > 4. Passwords > > 4.1. Definition > > This document specifies that a password is a string of Unicode code > points [UNICODE], encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629], and conformant to > OpaqueString profile of the PRECIS FreeformClass specified below. > > This left me confused why `basicauth` references `OpaqueString` instead > of "a password as defined in [PRECIS]" or something like that. Anyway... > > Since `OpaqueString` is said to be "specified below", I continued the > search and the next hit is > > 4.2. OpaqueString Profile > > The definition of the OpaqueString profile is provided in the > following sections, including detailed information about > preparation, enforcement, and comparison (on the distinction > between these actions, refer to [I-D.ietf-precis-framework]). > > 4.2.1. Preparation > > An entity that prepares a string according to this profile MUST > ensure that the string consists only of Unicode code points that > conform to the "FreeformClass" base string class defined in > [I-D.ietf-precis-framework]. In addition, the string MUST be > encoded as UTF-8 [RFC3629]. > > Since `basicauth` allows other character encodings than UTF-8, I have > found the MUST requirement here somewhat irritating, but I assume that > is resolved somewhere. I think what this text is trying to say is that "before using this algorithm, make sure that your data is in UTF-8". [snip] From nobody Tue Mar 10 15:30:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D051A8F37; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ITfmK6LndASm; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960821A0126; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2AMUcbZ084681 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:30:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "XMPP Working Group" , precis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:30:38 -0500 Message-ID: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9r5066) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:30:53 -0000 (as individual) Hi, This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the complexity of the material. I support it's publication. I have a few minor comments: -- section 3.2, paragraph 6: Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008? -- 3.3, implementation note: Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? -- 3.3.1, implementation note: I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational reference (using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs with escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from somewhere else, doesn't it? -- 4, para 10 (I think): "In such cases, clients SHOULD enforce..." The sending client, receiving client, or both? Assuming the former, it might be worth adding some words to the effect of "before transmitting..." -- 8: While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119 perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but redundant normative text makes life harder for future updates.) Thanks! /Ben. From nobody Tue Mar 10 15:38:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52381A9051; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wb-gwjlqmc4E; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE8E1A8F46; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2AMcNN7085744 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:38:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "XMPP Working Group" , precis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:38:23 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9r5066) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:38:36 -0000 BTW, I reviewed version 19, quite by accident :-) On 10 Mar 2015, at 17:30, Ben Campbell wrote: > (as individual) > > Hi, > > This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the > complexity of the material. I support it's publication. > > I have a few minor comments: > > -- section 3.2, paragraph 6: > > Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008? > > -- 3.3, implementation note: > > Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there > potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a > Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted > incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? > > -- 3.3.1, implementation note: > > I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational reference > (using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this > document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs with > escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from > somewhere else, doesn't it? > > -- 4, para 10 (I think): "In such cases, clients SHOULD enforce..." > > The sending client, receiving client, or both? Assuming the former, > it might be worth adding some words to the effect of "before > transmitting..." > > -- 8: > > While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's > some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119 > perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative > text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for > convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but redundant > normative text makes life harder for future updates.) > > Thanks! > > /Ben. > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp From nobody Tue Mar 10 16:13:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19291A9059 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWpGsYs8x5zR for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8B31A88B0 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iecvj10 with SMTP id vj10so35176306iec.0 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sfvjYngnKDyb/8QpapUzaxXoNM/gOjY9G369EYQA/lY=; b=mztrjaSIjFCTHJUj7K7/pQEOoWTb+9codRrNui0kbJIUmhJsREjmtqallbr8Qi35Tk 4FW+S/n7+JJwydIsstZL2F7YxxswW7L+NxRHwLDIaiYF3eeikrWfbWwFZwkAwaY9fgun dXTzA+w22y4WTy6gElo91L0LqZKblsQpr0thJDkfIY9N6Twsh4CwSUS4bQoS6DRlx1ex pClPMFmpAA0sF+bTGeoTths1jPFYPqUz7lSBgbkgghwK5nCPDD1Kz9nLl8tNrM55d/xH gL//d8dZQuyHAkJuTKkrGeisbIg6Nw6fRWl5yp9HfN2DskozJqaIfFvVzGOMaq+RnlWg dF9g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnwWqwBZNbgwHEEHly2aoE4OXhXUBiF9EZkBQgatGmy71OW2yaYrW+c5lTQWGNesul6FC0q X-Received: by 10.50.39.65 with SMTP id n1mr87048186igk.37.1426029208360; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d6sm1350862ioe.44.2015.03.10.16.13.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:13:28 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell , XMPP Working Group , precis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 23:13:30 -0000 On 3/10/15 4:38 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > BTW, I reviewed version 19, quite by accident :-) > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 17:30, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> (as individual) >> >> Hi, >> >> This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the >> complexity of the material. I support it's publication. >> >> I have a few minor comments: >> >> -- section 3.2, paragraph 6: >> >> Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008? Well, IDNA2008 is collectively RFCs 5890-5894 and we do point to several of those specs in §3.2. :-) >> -- 3.3, implementation note: >> >> Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there >> potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a >> Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted >> incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? Re-using the UsernameCaseMapped profile from draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis should help in this regard. However, as noted, some SASL mechanisms might not be upgraded quickly and thus would still use SASLprep (RFC 4013). The differences are explained a bit more in Appendix A of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis - as I see it, the only semi-major issue is that certain characters that were "mapped to nothing" in RFC 4013 are simply disallowed by the UsernameCaseMapped profile that we re-use in 6122bis. >> -- 3.3.1, implementation note: >> >> I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational reference >> (using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this >> document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs with >> escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from >> somewhere else, doesn't it? Well, the alternative is to reject the JID - but since the escaping mechanism in XEP-0106 is really a matter of presentation, it's something that affects clients more than servers anyway (and the JID escaping would be applied before PRECIS-related processing happens anyway). >> -- 4, para 10 (I think): "In such cases, clients SHOULD enforce..." >> >> The sending client, receiving client, or both? Assuming the former, >> it might be worth adding some words to the effect of "before >> transmitting..." Good catch. We might want to say "the entities involved SHOULD enforce", because in the second example there the chatroom might enforce the rules (so it's not just about clients) and more importantly it's not always a good idea to trust the sender. >> -- 8: >> >> While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's >> some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119 >> perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative >> text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for >> convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but redundant >> normative text makes life harder for future updates.) I see your point: it's never a great idea to say the same thing in two places. We do say: This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the conformance requirements of this specification.... We could add a sentence like: The summary is purely informational and does not override any of the more detailed descriptions in the body of this specification. Peter From nobody Tue Mar 10 17:52:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95811A92B8; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stsvpnN1nn9M; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 071EF1A92B1; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2B0pVUh004427 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:51:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:51:31 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9r5066) Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org, XMPP Working Group , draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:51:58 -0000 On 10 Mar 2015, at 18:13, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 3/10/15 4:38 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> BTW, I reviewed version 19, quite by accident :-) >> >> On 10 Mar 2015, at 17:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>> (as individual) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the >>> complexity of the material. I support it's publication. >>> >>> I have a few minor comments: >>> >>> -- section 3.2, paragraph 6: >>> >>> Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008? > > Well, IDNA2008 is collectively RFCs 5890-5894 and we do point to > several of those specs in §3.2. :-) I guess I should have said "... here", but needing 5 references probably argues against doing it again. :-) It just sort of looked strange that it was missing while the next phrase had a reference. > >>> -- 3.3, implementation note: >>> >>> Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there >>> potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a >>> Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted >>> incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? > > Re-using the UsernameCaseMapped profile from > draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis should help in this regard. However, as > noted, some SASL mechanisms might not be upgraded quickly and thus > would still use SASLprep (RFC 4013). The differences are explained a > bit more in Appendix A of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis - as I see it, > the only semi-major issue is that certain characters that were "mapped > to nothing" in RFC 4013 are simply disallowed by the > UsernameCaseMapped profile that we re-use in 6122bis. So an identifier created with UsernameCaseMapped should be fine, but an identifier created somewhere else in sasl might not be legal? That _seems_ unlikely to be a problem... It might not hurt to mention the saslprepbis appendix in the note. > >>> -- 3.3.1, implementation note: >>> >>> I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational >>> reference >>> (using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this >>> document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs >>> with >>> escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from >>> somewhere else, doesn't it? > > Well, the alternative is to reject the JID - but since the escaping > mechanism in XEP-0106 is really a matter of presentation, it's > something that affects clients more than servers anyway (and the JID > escaping would be applied before PRECIS-related processing happens > anyway). So a server would just operate on the escaped string without worrying about the fact. Got it. OTOH, this draft applies to clients, too. I suppose a client might display the raw string without unescaping, but that would be ugly. OTOH, that goes beyond the point of _this_ draft, so I'm okay leaving it as informational. [...] >>> -- 8: >>> >>> While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's >>> some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119 >>> perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative >>> text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for >>> convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but >>> redundant >>> normative text makes life harder for future updates.) > > I see your point: it's never a great idea to say the same thing in two > places. > > We do say: > > This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the > conformance requirements of this specification.... > > We could add a sentence like: > > The summary is purely informational and does not override any of the > more detailed descriptions in the body of this specification. How about adding something more specific. For example, something to the effect of the following (to either the current text or with your proposed addition): "[RFC2119] keywords in this section are intended to describe the referenced normative text." (A careful reader will figure out the right thing without it. But I'm not worried about _careful_ readers ;-) ) From nobody Tue Mar 10 18:11:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46F71A8782; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4siUjPK1fre6; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680CB1A9124; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2B1BQR3006260 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:11:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:11:26 -0500 Message-ID: <7C5C961D-FB27-445B-909B-981A7B76447B@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9r5066) Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org, XMPP Working Group , draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:11:40 -0000 On 10 Mar 2015, at 19:51, Ben Campbell wrote: > -- 3.3, implementation note: >>>> >>>> Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there >>>> potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a >>>> Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted >>>> incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? > > >> >> Re-using the UsernameCaseMapped profile from >> draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis should help in this regard. However, as >> noted, some SASL mechanisms might not be upgraded quickly and thus >> would still use SASLprep (RFC 4013). The differences are explained a >> bit more in Appendix A of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis - as I see >> it, the only semi-major issue is that certain characters that were >> "mapped to nothing" in RFC 4013 are simply disallowed by the >> UsernameCaseMapped profile that we re-use in 6122bis. > > > So an identifier created with UsernameCaseMapped should be fine, but > an identifier created somewhere else in sasl might not be legal? That > _seems_ unlikely to be a problem... I realized shortly after sending this that that made no sense. It seems more likely that you would run into a previously created identifier that followed older rules--but you already discuss that in the intro. Even so, it still might not hurt to mention the appendix. > > It might not hurt to mention the saslprepbis appendix in the note. From nobody Tue Mar 10 18:15:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5725A1A9152 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5zz67X-mT4nc for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A7D1A9141 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so8661795igb.5 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a/ae28sB19u0GdxCjxyouqSujnx4qfVvTyUwNvxwL5U=; b=UXxGAJdlJGUf09LopRli3ibti3ktdcVy5zwecqCFiEsnfnw2uLnLDz6Gy38ojQFRlh KvuxCMzMsvy55oY/IO+WlksuNpC4CePHUWi3aaEP2YCkWrV2e4HJab/k8KQX+8s3yXmA 6xAT29v0nD64JNV51+lJuRXKaVWOoXbR5eqjYeDsthVIwaLGOi26khfCeptjzuDRbi9N aKH9evMNITly9fR0RQDlVJ8JVdDp0HXaOlkedPt/YVJ+0v6/2DBl95+VaKRScbWibAi9 eVvL6fWSnpAkzsw0g9W8bERkoZNyXmCh80dFmWxXT6ohFdRJLQY3owK+hrEyuAdOcG5R H/og== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYVQHXBGBsGBjTH38i4LPrurtqD1Li/B9X8I2SIBCygRkXNx2TrTD9cpqK89+WEoPHFkUP X-Received: by 10.107.9.213 with SMTP id 82mr44250851ioj.57.1426036539627; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i16sm1543973ioe.17.2015.03.10.18.15.38 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54FF973C.8090004@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:15:40 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org, XMPP Working Group , draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:15:42 -0000 On 3/10/15 6:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 10 Mar 2015, at 18:13, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >> On 3/10/15 4:38 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> BTW, I reviewed version 19, quite by accident :-) >>> >>> On 10 Mar 2015, at 17:30, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>>> (as individual) >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is a very well written draft. It's easy to understand given the >>>> complexity of the material. I support it's publication. >>>> >>>> I have a few minor comments: >>>> >>>> -- section 3.2, paragraph 6: >>>> >>>> Is there a reason to avoid a reference for IDNA2008? >> >> Well, IDNA2008 is collectively RFCs 5890-5894 and we do point to >> several of those specs in §3.2. :-) > > I guess I should have said "... here", but needing 5 references probably > argues against doing it again. :-) It just sort of looked strange that > it was missing while the next phrase had a reference. > >> >>>> -- 3.3, implementation note: >>>> >>>> Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there >>>> potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a >>>> Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted >>>> incorrectly by some SASL mechanism? >> >> Re-using the UsernameCaseMapped profile from >> draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis should help in this regard. However, as >> noted, some SASL mechanisms might not be upgraded quickly and thus >> would still use SASLprep (RFC 4013). The differences are explained a >> bit more in Appendix A of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis - as I see it, >> the only semi-major issue is that certain characters that were "mapped >> to nothing" in RFC 4013 are simply disallowed by the >> UsernameCaseMapped profile that we re-use in 6122bis. > > So an identifier created with UsernameCaseMapped should be fine, but an > identifier created somewhere else in sasl might not be legal? That > _seems_ unlikely to be a problem... Right. > It might not hurt to mention the saslprepbis appendix in the note. Actually, Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis is an even better pointer because it describes the differences in more detail, with an eye toward migration from Stringprep to PRECIS. You might want to re-read that section to determine the level of your concern. >>>> -- 3.3.1, implementation note: >>>> >>>> I have mixed feelings about XEP-0106 being an informational reference >>>> (using the standard of "need to read to understand/implement this >>>> document"). Even if an implementation chooses not to create JIDs with >>>> escaped characters, it had to be prepared to receive them from >>>> somewhere else, doesn't it? >> >> Well, the alternative is to reject the JID - but since the escaping >> mechanism in XEP-0106 is really a matter of presentation, it's >> something that affects clients more than servers anyway (and the JID >> escaping would be applied before PRECIS-related processing happens >> anyway). > > So a server would just operate on the escaped string without worrying > about the fact. Got it. OTOH, this draft applies to clients, too. I > suppose a client might display the raw string without unescaping, but > that would be ugly. Yes, but it's interoperably ugly! ;-) > OTOH, that goes beyond the point of _this_ draft, so I'm okay leaving it > as informational. > > [...] > >>>> -- 8: >>>> >>>> While I don't object to the approach of the section, I think there's >>>> some risk of confusion about which text is authoritative from a 2119 >>>> perspective. I think it might be worth noting that the authoritative >>>> text is in the referenced sections, and only summarized here for >>>> convenience. (It only really matters if they conflict, but redundant >>>> normative text makes life harder for future updates.) >> >> I see your point: it's never a great idea to say the same thing in two >> places. >> >> We do say: >> >> This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the >> conformance requirements of this specification.... >> >> We could add a sentence like: >> >> The summary is purely informational and does not override any of the >> more detailed descriptions in the body of this specification. > > > How about adding something more specific. For example, something to the > effect of the following (to either the current text or with your > proposed addition): > > "[RFC2119] keywords in this section are intended to describe the > referenced normative text." > > (A careful reader will figure out the right thing without it. But I'm > not worried about _careful_ readers ;-) ) WFM! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Tue Mar 10 19:25:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5A01A1B9E; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xt8G8bQXHCub; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1AC91A1B51; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2B2OoD1012014 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:24:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.29] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Ben Campbell X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B466) In-Reply-To: <54FF973C.8090004@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:24:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <229E9DC9-EE4A-4992-8F75-68BBFB667F26@nostrum.com> References: <30D40A1D-09C3-4257-8DC1-A90AFE561571@nostrum.com> <54FF7A98.4090600@andyet.net> <54FF973C.8090004@andyet.net> To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet Archived-At: Cc: "precis@ietf.org" , XMPP Working Group , "draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [precis] [xmpp] WGLC Comments on 6122bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 02:24:58 -0000 On Mar 10, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wro= te: >> So an identifier created with UsernameCaseMapped should be fine, but an >> identifier created somewhere else in sasl might not be legal? That >> _seems_ unlikely to be a problem... >=20 > Right. >=20 >> It might not hurt to mention the saslprepbis appendix in the note. >=20 > Actually, Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis is an even better p= ointer because it describes the differences in more detail, with an eye towa= rd migration from Stringprep to PRECIS. You might want to re-read that secti= on to determine the level of your concern. I'm sorry, were you expecting stateful reviewers? ;-) So maybe adding something to effect of "see 6.1 of that doc for more details= " would be enough. But I read the note to be about coexisting with or using o= f non-updated SASL mechanisms, while 6.1 seems more about migrating.=20= From nobody Wed Mar 11 14:44:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29F11A884B; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:44:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GxbFhrk7VOav; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345F91A87C3; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=960; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426110241; x=1427319841; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=WSzpp2tzZj3rbVNcRvmZEsF0UIrGZUJMgdvdCwbCWNo=; b=fCA1FQGn4GfG4bk8U6ErCTYgOwbmyEj/wic1Nzx8zNQFpevFQIpu+z9c zgAfbM8k6CZAei41qdLiPEzp+3iAI9gdvfcxY5CZ2KGQ6W8C7kzZI+XC/ QeKZDDYS38kiafqxTqk5kHqUdhu/WoNiQCpcZyxDilr6j/K6BzWMJXTdc k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D4CAALtgBV/5NdJa1cgwZSWgSDB7pohXeHN0wBAQEBAQF9hDkPAUU2AgUWCwILAwIBAgE1FgEMBgIBAYgrri2bLwEBAQEGAQEBAQEBARcEgSGRVoFFBYpziRGFdYEahVshjGMjggEdgW9QgUR/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,384,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="399732829" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2015 21:44:00 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2BLi0jc024629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:44:00 GMT Received: from [10.129.24.54] (10.129.24.54) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (173.37.183.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:44:00 -0500 Message-ID: <5500B71F.9060602@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:43:59 -0600 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , IETF XMPP Group , IETF PRECIS WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.129.24.54] Archived-At: Subject: [precis] 6122bis WGLC Comments X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:44:03 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hello all, I have read draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis(-19), and support its publication. I think this document is clean and straight-forward (as one can be with i18n). I don't have any more to add over what Ben Campbell already noted. Thanks very much Peter for all the work! - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVALcfAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1zsQH/Awxpy8E4pl60XhI5WjK5TT4 XIEH4jTaddESlbkxlf619k09+R6wyzKWXEfmQG+COsaEsWhPrqUfxgcWLAcuELvV fYwcMEBAWRDTNInaVQysf76PdwHBkpBst04MIEib+I4OgG/OkRLnnB+/0+oDUgiJ dEqGRJ/xqQUlI5NGrIOxAYMTYCLmSrPFHnhYxcoF4w3OMIYS40YhnNzLrEfKNL/z ZL+u34O+8OT+Mj8cuuavKtYIxA/HlgNe0k0vHfkdw6O2FGyi0dwRSzQ3xM/Z/M+4 dB0PM7grE8eHxFhGEtCjLpfIeiy+aKoCiwYdDaQgXZB/E7seHcKPbwAASxaaQW4= =xB1j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Sat Mar 21 16:28:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC8C1A905B for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVJCAsZAhdgV for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BEB1A9066 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h194.viagenie.ca (h194.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.194]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEE804037C for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:28:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:28:13 -0500 To: precis@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] agenda for Dallas meeting X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:28:16 -0000 Hello, please find proposed agenda for Dallas meeting IETF precis working group meeting Dallas, TX, USA March 2015 Agenda 0. Administrativia 1. Status of LC (framework, saslprepbis, nickname, xmpp): authors and = shepherds 2. lucid BOF followup 3. Next steps Please submit any suggestions or changes to precis-chairs@tools.ietf.org Regards, Marc.= From nobody Mon Mar 23 18:57:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7891A874B for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:57:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id izLMx5dRnLtS for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A001A7015 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ignm3 with SMTP id m3so43674076ign.0 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HWIj2JVEC+yYDPydxU0VhrohSw4IXTI8iR9bmc4BiTA=; b=R0xjRsjfzs3W0ZXkG9u/xlM6AaghvYx6mqJUxamn8F6utkjYoE4qwvxxHRUdKOIcKx dcBSsm67Hxn1OyysyvX0rSjzZkgtwwGsGoErTLCJHJTO9ExhcTTD3apjlPRDnmbIaiqr iRd3kkAKzwlXYnFwyFwiTU4QdsLozt8b8qthVSg/Q/pOPHcsCxqJJ42fEbg0nAptHYlh 6MKshuLZMhhuqvWvEggEBIZnPOsVi1KwNMf0rGYd3nLccdRhV3kioPZMIW4MzeFMP8fF IJe87TVdS59rgUdW4tJoLCzRINCswSNWmkk4VvhbTPpW9nAnT9/VY33HjlyfNvJwpNoC wsCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEexFWGjXmE5RhiDPLpRNHhd29g4dlSWCu+sfe7ZHJhNVYpI+zT0fvxwhUrovFMi9ES7H8 X-Received: by 10.107.155.13 with SMTP id d13mr2827256ioe.29.1427162218205; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n15sm1782859ioe.6.2015.03.23.18.56.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5510C467.1060205@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:56:55 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Blanchet , precis@ietf.org References: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] agenda for Dallas meeting X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:57:00 -0000 On 3/21/15 5:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > Hello, > please find proposed agenda for Dallas meeting > > IETF precis working group meeting > Dallas, TX, USA > March 2015 > > Agenda > > 0. Administrativia > 1. Status of LC (framework, saslprepbis, nickname, xmpp): authors and shepherds In case slides are needed, I've prepared a few: https://stpeter.im/files/ietf92-precis-author-status.pdf Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Mon Mar 23 19:51:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC191B2BE0 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:51:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rXpDth5Q82Su for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39851B2BDB for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h194.viagenie.ca (h194.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.194]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 278894037C; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Marc Blanchet In-Reply-To: <5510C467.1060205@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <84BCC9D4-0840-4F4E-8CCC-B32FA1823BD1@viagenie.ca> References: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> <5510C467.1060205@andyet.net> To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] agenda for Dallas meeting X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 02:51:35 -0000 thanks. uploaded to the proceedings. Marc. > Le 2015-03-23 =E0 20:56, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet a = =E9crit : >=20 > On 3/21/15 5:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> Hello, >> please find proposed agenda for Dallas meeting >>=20 >> IETF precis working group meeting >> Dallas, TX, USA >> March 2015 >>=20 >> Agenda >>=20 >> 0. Administrativia >> 1. Status of LC (framework, saslprepbis, nickname, xmpp): authors and = shepherds >=20 > In case slides are needed, I've prepared a few: >=20 > https://stpeter.im/files/ietf92-precis-author-status.pdf >=20 > Peter >=20 > --=20 > Peter Saint-Andre > https://andyet.com/ From nobody Tue Mar 24 12:08:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85D11A8AB9 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8d5IUM61C3S for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kmd.keio.ac.jp (mail.kmd.keio.ac.jp [131.113.138.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCFD1A8AB7 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:136:dca8:11a1:5c47:7ef5] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:136:dca8:11a1:5c47:7ef5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kmd.keio.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DE737FBD3; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:08:04 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from t.nemo10@kmd.keio.ac.jp) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Takahiro Nemoto In-Reply-To: <84BCC9D4-0840-4F4E-8CCC-B32FA1823BD1@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:08:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> <5510C467.1060205@andyet.net> <84BCC9D4-0840-4F4E-8CCC-B32FA1823BD1@viagenie.ca> To: Marc Blanchet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] agenda for Dallas meeting X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:08:13 -0000 Hello, Marc-san Sorry for not replying sooner. Would you mind adding the mappings document to the agenda? According to the discussion in IETF90, the mappings move to WGLC after = the framework document IETF LC is done. So I'd like to ask about the mappings next step tomorrow meeting. Best regards, Nemo -- Takahiro Nemoto t.nemo10@kmd.keio.ac.jp 2015/03/23 21:51=E3=80=81Marc Blanchet = =E3=81=AE=E3=83=A1=E3=83=BC=E3=83=AB=EF=BC=9A > thanks. uploaded to the proceedings. >=20 > Marc. >=20 >> Le 2015-03-23 =C3=A0 20:56, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet = a =C3=A9crit : >>=20 >> On 3/21/15 5:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>> Hello, >>> please find proposed agenda for Dallas meeting >>>=20 >>> IETF precis working group meeting >>> Dallas, TX, USA >>> March 2015 >>>=20 >>> Agenda >>>=20 >>> 0. Administrativia >>> 1. Status of LC (framework, saslprepbis, nickname, xmpp): authors = and shepherds >>=20 >> In case slides are needed, I've prepared a few: >>=20 >> https://stpeter.im/files/ietf92-precis-author-status.pdf >>=20 >> Peter >>=20 >> --=20 >> Peter Saint-Andre >> https://andyet.com/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Tue Mar 24 13:45:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C46F1A0395 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y0H8atFrY1cH for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BBE1A036F for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h194.viagenie.ca (h194.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.194]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DE1C4128A; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Marc Blanchet In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:45:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <22E831AE-0DEF-4F5E-ABB2-33B896CF0E62@viagenie.ca> References: <77C631FA-CD06-4CDC-A79F-5E1CAFBB7684@viagenie.ca> <5510C467.1060205@andyet.net> <84BCC9D4-0840-4F4E-8CCC-B32FA1823BD1@viagenie.ca> To: Nemoto Takahiro X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: precis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [precis] agenda for Dallas meeting X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:45:50 -0000 > Le 2015-03-24 =C3=A0 14:05, Nemoto Takahiro = a =C3=A9crit : >=20 > Hello, Marc-san >=20 > Sorry for not replying sooner. > Would you mind adding the mappings document to the agenda? sure. Marc. > According to the discussion in IETF90, the mappings move to WGLC after = the framework document IETF LC is done. > So I'd like to ask about the mappings next step tomorrow meeting. >=20 > Best regards, > Nemo >=20 > 2015/03/23 21:51=E3=80=81Marc Blanchet = =E3=81=AE=E3=83=A1=E3=83=BC=E3=83=AB=EF=BC=9A >=20 >> thanks. uploaded to the proceedings. >>=20 >> Marc. >>=20 >>> Le 2015-03-23 =C3=A0 20:56, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet = a =C3=A9crit : >>>=20 >>> On 3/21/15 5:28 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> please find proposed agenda for Dallas meeting >>>>=20 >>>> IETF precis working group meeting >>>> Dallas, TX, USA >>>> March 2015 >>>>=20 >>>> Agenda >>>>=20 >>>> 0. Administrativia >>>> 1. Status of LC (framework, saslprepbis, nickname, xmpp): authors = and shepherds >>>=20 >>> In case slides are needed, I've prepared a few: >>>=20 >>> https://stpeter.im/files/ietf92-precis-author-status.pdf >>>=20 >>> Peter >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Peter Saint-Andre >>> https://andyet.com/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> precis mailing list >> precis@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis >=20