From nobody Sun Aug 26 09:40:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750BA126CB6 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:40:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Nmk29zZudB9S for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A59112008A for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 43BEEB8161E; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) To: stpeter@mozilla.com, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: poccil14@gmail.com, precis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20180826163945.43BEEB8161E@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8264 (5478) X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 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, 26 Aug 2018 16:40:04 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8264, "PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5478 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Peter Occil Section: 9.12 Original Text ------------- L: Control(cp) = True Corrected Text -------------- L: General_Category(cp) = Cc Notes ----- Nothing in the Unicode Standard (including UAX 44) defines a property or function named Control. What is probably meant is the General_Category property value Control, which is abbreviated Cc. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8264 (draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols Publication Date : October 2017 Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre, M. Blanchet Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Sun Aug 26 10:20:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C52128CE4 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 y0l8ZzAY_yAR for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7445B126CB6 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 75779B817D7; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:19:56 -0700 (PDT) To: stpeter@mozilla.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: poccil14@gmail.com, precis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20180826171956.75779B817D7@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8265 (5479) X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 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, 26 Aug 2018 17:20:15 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8265, "Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5479 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Peter Occil Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- A userpart is allowed to contain only code points that are allowed by the PRECIS IdentifierClass defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8264] and thus consists almost exclusively of letters and digits. Corrected Text -------------- A userpart is allowed to contain only code points that are allowed by the PRECIS IdentifierClass defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8264] (with respect to the userpart containing them, not to the username as a whole) and thus consists almost exclusively of letters and digits. Notes ----- Because certain characters in IdentifierClass are CONTEXTO and are not valid unless the whole string doesn't contain certain other characters (an example is ARABIC-INDIC DIGITS), it is unclear whether the context-specific rules apply to the whole username or to individual userparts. However, section 3.5 strongly suggests that usernames (as opposed to userparts) are the matter of a higher-level protocol than this RFC. As a result, this erratum adds the text in parentheses to clarify that context-specific rules apply to individual userparts. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8265 (draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords Publication Date : October 2017 Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre, A. Melnikov Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Sun Aug 26 10:42:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072B7128CE4 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 vT8eqtCJEbHi for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa3.jck.com (unknown [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E0F126CB6 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ftz3V-0001DX-2U; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:42:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:42:24 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: RFC Errata System , stpeter@mozilla.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca cc: precis@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20180826171956.75779B817D7@rfc-editor.org> References: <20180826171956.75779B817D7@rfc-editor.org> 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 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8265 (5479) X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 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, 26 Aug 2018 17:42:49 -0000 Two observations: (1) While the issue identified is relevant, it is not clear that the broader interpretation of the statement that the proposed erratum tries to eliminate is necessarily a bad idea. The general goal of all of these rules for identifiers (in PRECIS, IDNA, and elsewhere) is to reduce cases of matching problems and visual and other confusion (whether accidental or malicious). In that context, any kind of hair-splitting -- seeing how narrowly assorted rules and guidelines can be interpreted -- is generally a bad idea and inconsistent with the intent of whatever rules are laid out and the goals they represent. While treating userparts separately is almost certainly what the text intended (just as IDNA2008 treats the labels of an FQDN separately, in part because there was no other choice), encouraging a username that (to use the example in the report) will have Arabic-Indic Digits in one userpart and Eastern Arabic-Indic Digits in another userpart is really just looking for trouble. I haven't taken the tome to do the analysis, but my guess is that other examples abound, if only because users are much more likely to look at an perceive whole usernames rather than their components. So, I would encourage caution here. If this text is to be clarified wrt narrowness of the rule, I think additional comments about hair-splitting and protocol-lawyering (perhaps by a pointer to text elsewhere in the document) would be in order. (2) Personally, I found the original text clear --after all, the sentence is only about userparts -- and the proposed parenthetical clarification more confusing than the original text was without it. If there is actually a problem that needs to be solved, I think a more comprehensive rewrite of the paragraph is needed, not the proposed insertion. best, john --On Sunday, 26 August, 2018 10:19 -0700 RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8265, > "Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized > Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5479 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Peter Occil > > Section: 3.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > A userpart is allowed to contain only code > points that are allowed by the PRECIS IdentifierClass > defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8264] and thus consists > almost exclusively of letters and digits. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > A userpart is allowed to contain only code > points that are allowed by the PRECIS IdentifierClass > defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC8264] (with respect to the > userpart containing them, not to the username as a whole) > and thus consists almost exclusively of letters and digits. > > Notes > ----- > Because certain characters in IdentifierClass are CONTEXTO and > are not valid unless the whole string doesn't contain certain > other characters (an example is ARABIC-INDIC DIGITS), it is > unclear whether the context-specific rules apply to the whole > username or to individual userparts. However, section 3.5 > strongly suggests that usernames (as opposed to userparts) are > the matter of a higher-level protocol than this RFC. As a > result, this erratum adds the text in parentheses to clarify > that context-specific rules apply to individual userparts. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, > please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be > verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the > verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the > report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8265 (draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-11) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison > of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and > Passwords Publication Date : October 2017 > Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre, A. Melnikov > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Preparation and Comparison of > Internationalized Strings Area : Applications > and Real-Time > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis