From nobody Mon May 1 18:00:36 2017 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 EEEEC1200ED for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 18:00:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=RX+TK9NT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=IhkgKcn0 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 iOxlTiew_L1v for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 18:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F54B12EAD1 for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 17:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FD820B27; Mon, 1 May 2017 20:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 May 2017 20:57:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=fNSamyrBt+ILKbbjAG ewhLZNpY5wAQLS/EcHrksniFU=; b=RX+TK9NTtzdbS+doFmAmEFQC5wHm8Zm8I0 spsS06QshzR2b6eRiqdXZSJ4b0y9vojeo9wPMcNV5EEG4bVDkevykiozbXEsu1z0 dAXDtGEpwG8k5VMAfBpQdfcJSx+8SdyOe0+n90gFVuC3xhIOC6QGLQbJuu1f/2cz wR138Y5AdZ9EiEzc0VkNAxfBTMpXUAv+KHpwjfPIAc/nLy9Ra2avf94olXC2YXNU VqZrWMJu0X1j/ehFSz8Jfpw0/CHge2TG9jL11irfp1IbSEX5XQl3VOr0OW46P2zH Nk89YaY7GpHW1fWeM8kBonFpz78miZJojWVbE6enHxNunqx7i+Dw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=fNSamyrBt+ILKbbjAGewhLZNpY5wAQLS/EcHrksniFU=; b=IhkgKcn0 vu7zjdd7Zoz5hET6827/kU4o/4y3ewz+EqJnbAtIJQ0GErEoLSJ3tb9aRsGNLRKT 2wJRzxQIGMcT3G6V53VFhGZBuBtDK95uF9qGgTpDu5xiYKxTH63eEYc4M9P78F3c PO8I/z3S+2WK0IyicTyIbRZyi7M9Av12Y5mhpmfqLODs79lSVWLMv28cwIqlcRS4 yYNHWuWgo5bG4ZQ7J/+72lwxL+GnJcVFtMSdYGxZqyOO/LXYPanCDDKwJcdEtqhR ZY4jC9Uq3e8QLH5tm4mU9ibWs1OftXQjvdGAkuEvNRjX4xkE+rl+BGoYs9vAm/Lo s2IoO/y0FYldaQ== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: AsVNp+DYYtW6ax9e0hoB0CqwTvzjuLf5lwtGMh4XzUBO 1493686661 Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1641F7E21C; Mon, 1 May 2017 20:57:40 -0400 (EDT) To: William Fisher , Sam Whited References: <15c31273-c278-af61-2a01-0b68ab8af182@stpeter.im> <0f5b55f8-5fcb-2a61-435e-7b93d2d8f9e6@stpeter.im> <6df28263-cdfa-cc61-4ba9-1bdae17bcca8@stpeter.im> Cc: precis@ietf.org From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 18:57:39 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 02 May 2017 01:00:34 -0000 I'm more comfortable with this model than with adding more steps. On 4/19/17 3:37 PM, William Fisher wrote: > An alternative is to treat finalization as an application/protocol > responsibility. RFC 7564 section 6.2. "Further Excluded Characters" > can be interpreted as allowing a protocol to post-process PRECIS > output, just like section 6.3. "Building Application-Layer Constructs" > allows pre-processing input before passing it to PRECIS. > > PRECIS is the recommended whitelist ("inclusion model"). A > protocol/application can still blacklist specific inputs, which may > include "fixing" non-idempotent results. > > -Bill > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Sam Whited wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Thinking about this further, I now lean against making this change in >>> the PRECIS processing rules, for several reasons: >> >> Sorry for dragging this back up again, but I ran into this for the >> first time "in the real world" recently (a comprison using the >> nickname profile that was unexpectedly failing in a non-obvious way) >> and wanted to weigh in: >> >> With the nickname profile in particular this might not be that big of >> a deal, but other as-yet-unthought-of future security focused profiles >> may need to use NFKC for some handwavey reason (although if they are >> security focused they probaly shouldn't be using NFKC, but let's >> assume that they have too), but may need to be idempotent for security >> reasons. It is currently not possible (as far as I can tell) to create >> a profile that both uses NFKC, and is idempotent. I know we don't want >> to encourage profile proliferation, but I suspect at some point >> someone will have a valid reason to write a new profile, so future >> proofing would be nice. >> >> Maybe it would be beneficial to add a new step to the PRECIS framework >> (with the understanding that current profiles just don't have this >> step, making them backwards compatible), a "finalization mapping" >> step: this could be used to eg. run the additional mapping rule a >> second time, run normalization again, or just perform specific known >> mappings that fix edge cases. I'm not sure how generally useful it >> would be, or if it would just be a huge change for relatively little >> benefit (or maybe it would even be an actively bad thing somehow?); >> just a thought. >> >> Best, >> Sam From nobody Mon May 1 18:27:19 2017 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 41955129A92 for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 18:27:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=C0aowgGk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=NU2VWHN4 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 cAeUvaPTJGkN for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 18:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A3C712EAED for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9350020970; Mon, 1 May 2017 21:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 May 2017 21:24:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Fxih42PRMtiTujDh1f n17DQBYfrIDR8AjuQi6eKaABU=; b=C0aowgGk6qZItXL1GrGCFfC/oGZSmuJ8gg uDemvuU9PMUDDUTQgKqlJntb4QSonbYJgayX4c61AlVg6MnfxdAlegK497nKU1ol U7BjIMRuj0Ug7GOi0ji4IfUoKW4mox90ZpffRyjogzIr3SL7OVqj58uw1FcsTB/W 5rw+Vx0u0VrCdj/QRHZX+rkk5es7WW/noDdjL2vFozBzk/p8aplwWz4kCtoe5Bpb oIbURdp3GvV/Cj/eoQjcgrMlbad9+fSMQHqRd9Cziv4k/hmg253AnFaMDjkeeuRN zWfDtmk7wt6pvgYWZwWsIVfrYB7hmQNjhVkr4kWp1jVHrRhCYubQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=Fxih42PRMtiTujDh1fn17DQBYfrIDR8AjuQi6eKaABU=; b=NU2VWHN4 hC3IBAK16bab3gEA/bvaVy7f49qfiMhYICp1ZTR/Ypa1YhwrnCIqp5xzfeFR/JG6 l75PK2KJx58V6C27B2NgIQz2MS9o8XLt25llxM1dugpxKAejRTiMSJlkOTDLT+6D 6hhYIAvIi4x3Uo4RCfqQBBdXDwE4ssAS3SZQyRSJQA4z+MLyYa6/8PG9DhXDQ/O9 eNlrCMhSTCYAYQzzIJYyAP2FrkhnRlo9zCWU1dtfjDLWtbCFZkWRQ62hHqirsP7n wLAPrueg90SuD80GndwxrUHHaKix44eGS2+npl7dtWR4xnSP9mL+zDSYEy5Yv7cm A3ZO+W1zwhRnDA== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: ZFXHqOEn/iqndoRaXytRR2CSZIdSjXoQwT6RJ8aLlU+S 1493688285 Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF7CE7E1BE; Mon, 1 May 2017 21:24:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos , precis@ietf.org References: <1490885635.10364.10.camel@redhat.com> <5d02a0bc-5f53-a9fe-33fe-be0c66de24ee@stpeter.im> <1490948974.24162.5.camel@redhat.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <44146cf5-a5af-a0f2-5bb8-af06924f2c6d@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 19:24:44 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1490948974.24162.5.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] rationale of rfc7613 decisions X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 02 May 2017 01:27:17 -0000 Hi Nikos, I will add some explanatory text to the relevant specs (IMHO it doesn't all belong in 7613bis - some of it is more appropriate for 7564bis). Details below. On 3/31/17 2:29 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 19:45 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >>> I'm checking both rfc7564 and rfc7613, and I cannot find the >>> rationale >>> of the restrictions being done. In particular: >>> 1. why rfc7613 restricts all spaces for passwords to U+0020? >> >> > [...] >>> 2. what is the purpose of "Contextual Rule Required" in section >>> 4.3.2 >>> of rfc7564? >> >> It's complicated, but in essence PRECIS is consistent with IDNA2008 >> here >> (see RFC 5891, RFC 5892, and RFC 5894). In particular, the code >> points >> ZERO WIDTH JOINER (U+200D) and ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER (U+200C) are >> necessary to produce certain combinatiosn of characters in certain >> scripts (e.g., Arabic, Persian, and Indic scripts) but if used in >> other >> contexts can have consequences that violate the principle of least >> user astonishment. > > I think that such issues should warrant extensive discussions in an RFC > like 7613. It is not apparent for me for example why that principle > should apply for passwords (which are not visible). It's not just about (visible or auditory) presentation. A user can be astonished if, for example, they can use a character in a userid but not in a password. We try to keep these differences to a minimum, while at the same time meeting the needs of the underlying constructs (e.g., allowing more entropy in passwords than in userids). For passwords, another aspect of the thinking behind RFC 4013 and RFC 7613 is that we want people to be able to reproduce a password on multiple different systems (e.g., a mobile device and a desktop machine). Introducing too many different characters (and RFC 7613 is more liberal here than RFC 4013 was) will make that more difficult. > I guess there are > arguments for that, but should be presented in order to understand and > be able to convince people that RFC7613 is the way to go. As I pointed out, in the IETF those who believe they want something other than RFC 7613 really need to be the ones making a strong argument. Rolling your own can be just as hazardous in internationalization as it is in cryptography. >> 3. why freeform class doesn't allow "Old Hangul Jamo characters"? >> As explained in §2.9 of RFC 5892: >> >> Elimination of conjoining Hangul Jamo from the set of PVALID >> characters results in restricting the set of Korean PVALID >> characters >> just to preformed, modern Hangul syllable characters. >> Here again PRECIS is consistent with IDNA2008. > > As I am mostly restricted in the context of passwords, my question is > mostly on why is this done for the passwords. E.g., Is it because the > Hangual Jamo set is a deprecated set which may not be in use years from > now or another reason? Those are archaic characters absent from modern Hangul. It's not as if they may not be in use years from now - they haven't been used in quite some time. >>> 4. why freeform class doesn't allow ignorable charaters? >> >> These are things like soft hyphen, certain joiners, specialized code >> points for use within Unicode itself (e.g., language tags and >> variation >> selectors), and so on. They were disallowed in RFC 4013 and are >> disallowed in IDNA2008, too. >> >> By saying "PRECIS is consistent with IDNA2008" I'm not appealing to >> authority or saying that a consistency is necessarily a good thing. >> Instead, defining as few string handling methods as possible helps >> users >> because strings aren't handled differently in different protocols and >> contexts (see §5.1 of RFC 7564). This has security implications, too, >> because the more such methods exist the easier it will be for >> attackers to trick users. > > In the context of 'passwords', I see very little applicability of such > attacks, though I may be wrong. The main concern I see for passwords > used for storage is compatibility, e.g., even with legacy software > which did not follow these rules, and simplicity, so that software can > follow the rules under reasonable for the task effort (I find the > effort RFC7613 requires for processing UTF-8 passwords unproportionaly > complex to the effort needed for US-ASCII passwords). You might not be the target audience for internationalized strings (whether passwords or usernames or anything else). >>> The context of that, is that I am trying to understand what would >>> be >>> the drawbacks from recommending a fixed normalization form (e.g., >>> NFC), >>> for passwords, in contrast to recommending rfc7613. >> >> Nikos, instead of asking us why the foregoing restrictions were made, >> ask yourself why you would want to ignore them and whether you >> understand internationalization well enough to independently craft >> appropriate rules and guidelines for the RFC you're updating. Because >> you actively work on security technologies, think of it this way: >> would >> you want someone who doesn't understand all the issues to "just use >> TLS" >> without specifying appropriate cipher suites (ignoring RFC 7525) or >> certificate checking procedures (ignoring RFC 5280 and RFC 6125)? The >> issues involved with internationalization are just as complex (albeit >> in different ways) and the whole reason we developed IDNA2008 and >> PRECIS is so that well-meaning folks like you don't shoot yourselves >> in the foot. > > I cannot disagree with that, however, providing rationale for the > decisions is important, especially in documents which are developed in > disconnect with many existing protocols/practices. The current state in > PKCS#12, PKCS#8 encrypted files, is pass there whatever you have as > long as it is UTF-8. Convincing developers to deploy thousands lines of > code for pre-processing such passwords, would require to underline the > problems of the previous practice. Implement or deploy? There are, of course, libraries for such things. > RFC7613 unfortunately ignores that > part completely, and I have no arguments when trying to convince people > that this should be preferred. I tend to agree with you that internationalization is not always necessary. Protocol designers need to weigh the tradeoffs. The PRECIS specifications don't tell people that they have to support internationalized strings - instead, they give people a tool they can use to support internationalized strings in the smartest, safest way possible. If the community of PKCS#12 / PKCS#8 developers and users don't see a compelling need for internationalized passwords, then there's no strong reason for them to add this support to their specifications and software. Stick with ASCII if that's the best course! >> I strongly encourage you to use the PRECIS profile for passwords in >> RFC7613, and we'd be happy to help you do so in the safest ways >> possible. > > I'm trying to make a list of items which make apparent why RFC7613 is > needed. What I have now is: > > "UTF-8 however, does not imply that strings conforming to it, are > unambiguously unique, since there are can be various forms of the same > string which may look identical to an observer, although being > represented by a different byte string. For sure - and there are plenty of attacks here. > Some issues are the following." > > [The NFC argument is the easier to explain] > * Various normalization forms, which result to different data for the > same input. > > [why spaces need to be merged to 0x20 is harder to sell] > * The unicode standard includes a number of space characters which > cannot be distinguished from each other, or have no width resulting to > different results when switching to a different input method > > [Hangual Jamo even harder] > * There are deprecated alphabet sets, which are no longer in use(?) > and may not be available as input methods in the future. > > [contextual rule] > * Certain combinations of code points between certain scripts produce > unexpected visible results. (the question here is why would one care > for visible results on passwords which are not printed) Those aren't bad summaries, but as mentioned I'll add some informational text to the PRECIS-bis documents so that the explanations are clearer. Peter From nobody Mon May 1 19:14:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCB8129584; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:14:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: precis@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149369124133.9950.18119543235408543813@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 19:14:01 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 02:14:01 -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 of the IETF. Title : PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols Authors : Peter Saint-Andre Marc Blanchet Filename : draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2017-05-01 Abstract: Application protocols using Unicode code points in protocol strings need to properly handle such strings in order to enforce internationalization rules for strings placed in various protocol slots (such as addresses and identifiers) and to perform valid comparison operations (e.g., for purposes of authentication or authorization). This document defines a framework enabling application protocols to perform the preparation, enforcement, and comparison of internationalized strings ("PRECIS") in a way that depends on the properties of Unicode code points and thus is more agile with respect to versions of Unicode. As a result, this framework provides a more sustainable approach to the handling of internationalized strings than the previous framework, known as Stringprep (RFC 3454). This document obsoletes RFC 7564. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7564bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07 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 May 1 19:14:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B1412EAEF; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:14:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: precis@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149369124630.9788.9360411326914895190@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 19:14:06 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 02:14:06 -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 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-7613bis-07.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2017-05-01 Abstract: This document describes updated methods for handling Unicode strings representing usernames and passwords. The previous approach was known as SASLprep (RFC 4013) and was based on stringprep (RFC 3454). The methods specified in this document provide a more sustainable approach to the handling of internationalized usernames and passwords. The preparation, enforcement, and comparison of internationalized strings (PRECIS) framework, RFC 7564, obsoletes RFC 3454, and this document obsoletes RFC 7613. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07 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 May 1 19:14:38 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FE81294CE; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:14:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: precis@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149369125424.9813.8383704379242919135@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 19:14:14 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 02:14:19 -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 of the IETF. Title : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2017-05-01 Abstract: This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings representing memorable, human-friendly names (called "nicknames", "display names", or "petnames") for people, devices, accounts, websites, and other entities. This document obsoletes RFC 7700. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07 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 May 1 19:19:52 2017 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 DF992128D3E for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:19:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=IpRFsHsj; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=N/CC4GMt 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 zJq9CyWwd_Up for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62352129ACC for ; Mon, 1 May 2017 19:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC11D20B62; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 May 2017 22:17:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Y2x6gxmHu7Mest+sPkFNjoUrTKnu0GPcV22+9UC7h sk=; b=IpRFsHsjSNyEmEqZcPFe7WJhIcl/KAIqqPt34BMw/+rW1JfEau2W6tIHJ yKPwJ/VLvmCBjexDrMcpdYqhq5LrCKCWoA1i3sdPbvGahg/FWU6pj/oH1F6nBTcQ 4/rPH/NNvbDk87FfALxPknWrbfHUy0gul7riuuh7NzjyBAa/3fjCfCPncxvFRlG1 YccCLXrpKOU0BEefVcA1tNKKeMqAoq0hde6JLoqOoetcr6i/aLvUIxn2djqYiZ1v v8OzRC6FBYPSWTEru9C6KAWSsbTG3oNr4n6IHF/8BDpSPBYNAz4e5CKY6WzStTCW DUU1nxyub2aomxx/ddLgs3LY/Qimg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Y2x6gxmHu7Mest+sPk FNjoUrTKnu0GPcV22+9UC7hsk=; b=N/CC4GMtSXUN+iavsc0/8PA3h9BgkPSkqs ioUfPCC0NaDf9L58gtL0VEDmHa7yneVQUHoS6gH+h2oc5yVWkU2aiVEY6t2nlz7w erd/YOivniWuZmTKFpWSDQBmnuQXv0Jja3ENWVU7ILAW8qSWoHH8kwYb2J0zYAu4 /Jq9Zf9DVqp6TTSzFeRJs7PXUqquyIotqpHkiBomnw3lZOVS2y4Q2qpbZ8R3GgtV 1uZ3Vx8f3xNccYGlcaKaToTXwrrUzfvmbac55Lx9nh25I06iPRMI7GcvGjjdJ/Tp iYFzmeMuwUozgByH5nBl/Ql+FIYoyN0+8eRkvt8qrv5BkPcMRC5A== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: teGj4DqEn709L9nrL9GgGvyBdcRwYTlXX0UG30hlC/QD 1493691444 Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 75BB17E21C; Mon, 1 May 2017 22:17:24 -0400 (EDT) To: "precis@ietf.org" From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <82156bcc-d9e4-03e1-2339-8d2b6819e9ee@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:17:23 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [precis] -07 drafts X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 02 May 2017 02:19:50 -0000 The -07 versions just posted are intended to address the recent thread regarding the rationale behind various PRECIS decisions, which as far as I can see contains the only actionable WGLC feedback. In my opinion these documents should be ready for IETF Last Call. Peter From nobody Wed May 24 13:49:13 2017 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 4A2AA129B82 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 13:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 3TXRMkLzsmxw for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 13:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83E6127B52 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 13:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.20] (h132.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.132]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4516246E7F for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:49:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc Blanchet" To: "precis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:49:08 -0400 Message-ID: <0D4BD3A6-A369-4AF6-A8C7-D29ED910A018@viagenie.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] closing wg lc X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 24 May 2017 20:49:11 -0000 Hello, unless someone disagree shortly, I’m going to write the shepherd writeup and then forward the documents to the IESG. Marc. On 1 May 2017, at 22:17, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > The -07 versions just posted are intended to address the recent thread > regarding the rationale behind various PRECIS decisions, which as far > as > I can see contains the only actionable WGLC feedback. In my opinion > these documents should be ready for IETF Last Call. > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Thu May 25 08:56:09 2017 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 D489A129AF6 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:56:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 K0UzZgVvGx25 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A423E129478 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.20] (h132.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.132]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B56847712; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:56:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc Blanchet" To: peter@filament.com Cc: precis@ietf.org Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:56:03 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7564bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:56:07 -0000 Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? if yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? Marc. From nobody Thu May 25 08:57:15 2017 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 8F12E129B04 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 THFvZohEpcd6 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0412129478 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.20] (h132.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.132]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37F5B4771F; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc Blanchet" To: peter@filament.com, Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com Cc: precis@ietf.org Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:11 -0400 Message-ID: <03B41048-501F-4EF7-9051-F28461E433C0@viagenie.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:57:14 -0000 Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? if yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? Marc. From nobody Thu May 25 08:57:56 2017 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 76C81129B10 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 sm2s_9bMgIIj for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1F9129B15 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 08:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.20] (h132.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.132]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E6744771F; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc Blanchet" To: peter@filament.com Cc: precis@ietf.org Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:53 -0400 Message-ID: <56817976-68B0-44D2-9C5E-2542C7931FB9@viagenie.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7700bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:57:55 -0000 Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? if yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? Marc. From nobody Thu May 25 09:39:09 2017 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 189E61294EC for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=bZSxh+h3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=OvQ+HCYK 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 nvrsPdWGxOwG for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E26126B6E for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAA220AA4; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=8XUHVBQVyRuc6+wgjN CbynCuLt+H4KIGpamD+BXwkY8=; b=bZSxh+h3o0sABj695bfG0ZBLpCUBki0jdQ EsP6hrowv4NrBKEeBv2DiOJpPBztrocx3It+dptzR/XhyyQzrh7nBiO011JaqUw/ K2sKKoH9x63wUpAgFvd7bwmTNTam/ixwKCq1jFnrruBCl/uZyye62vYQyIy44JJz grywh4gkzG6swU5xndqA+5MQJ7D3SE17StnF4nZ+LHZ5DfHLV9md1zjFbC1OgqfE d2oifv1QdLoFEm7wT6RorUr3JbTzfguD53p3bC8yo8mEjbcGeAArR1oYftdBhO1L uIF7UOBCkgoyyuiLtTAQD20EcxlAA8OZ++1E/PCQfqXnxwQdOTjQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=8XUHVBQVyRuc6+wgjNCbynCuLt+H4KIGpamD+BXwkY8=; b=OvQ+HCYK K+sb7awhFirhKQMM+H4pI6ACPuQyceRi5UcJ4zCk6stqVRK7v0pug1cuo18zottu 00YpSmC7XUEajAQT0Ir9GLlzP+tkkYqM7g0vU7xsfdvWFV0fdLE3Pdqb+PS+12va hiuIfRo10B1J9dm8iqbxnHUR0n7JJ36+YezXgRfPxQAbLjgq0Nt5PSHc+qyUXcp9 g3HDhibluDrXbhIECm4FekSltIJWqON+yLG0qMgWXAQaTcBZqqEDS6AYw96WXR7o E4GQ7/maK1RnxdeqRd82U8xHAG+ZWU52bM1xNMSWHC+mbUSXTuEbg0ZyPijZ9oF0 cF9D8FQlPXFWUw== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: +j1rwZtcNyxXSJOsC6IQPhyNge6nvtOyRECg/+IKqzM6 1495730345 Received: from [10.141.98.13] (mobile-166-170-34-50.mycingular.net [166.170.34.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E8DB47E545; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Peter Saint-Andre X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:05 -0400 Cc: peter@filament.com, precis@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <06FB6C5C-96BB-4279-8847-9C1EE7E68C59@stpeter.im> References: To: Marc Blanchet Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7564bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 16:39:08 -0000 I am aware of no such IPR. Peter Sent from mobile, might be terse=20 > On May 25, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Marc Blanchet wr= ote: >=20 > Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? i= f yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? >=20 > Marc. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Thu May 25 09:39:59 2017 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 1C7681294EC for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=L1CW8YjP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Ehxkzqn6 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 GAQge9xTlITX for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0702B127011 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3557A20AC5; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=1gyJK/0JBo0Ep7k6oV W6tnpNwk9sptkTVAH/CigMV0Q=; b=L1CW8YjPaxVA1S/MSqPaDkApOJurj4K6xS MVNKw8Xl4lqONYYz+rx6HziiI7AdLHQvCZgvhXv/RhucBBlFBAUDExhz+YdNTFXz 7wbF8Bf5y2Xc8BcPmGmc3Nfyq5fp+5CFlCK/HySwVu6LAdRlcGj95QbJ1OouXx7l 4PQ7ZljfdhLdP5m2yNiv/K8t1Rr0M0x9J6B2KZXkKu1aqDX+hWEVgahdWPudOFVX 6vzekAYuOJ8C98w012lGSAJug0/0yWe/qkFNF/rwvAWB7Gje5kHlZ3BInB99iPKd zwKI5BWiovzHNnoBa9tAItU5rd8LbO0iVofkQw+HRnc1aJ4lJfyw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=1gyJK/0JBo0Ep7k6oVW6tnpNwk9sptkTVAH/CigMV0Q=; b=Ehxkzqn6 7sFMHLOFf6BPdmVxv6IL363Ebi/ST6CpdYa/VK7HjYnVAERqKxYA1c2rhrVVZssW GUruXZiCkKJ67CQf7X8Nk3nALAVtODkeb1F8aQeOrUwS+8PlQ8/mHQFbY4NiMi1Q VX9nXguChp4FJJrkm3GqsQsjICMvtOtA9E+9wzKW03s6eqEPfMRkuUYrPz5OuB8Y oFvQZzYjlmnYyBhMnUIo/G56QadO/tHAn15P2PFWLvywHPNEYzQD1srrSuLWYDlx N6b+nVfSvYNLfa812sF0gUtwDTnlQl+m2zhotxboD0K3cnTcjYbNVdqHtTxKTxjT UrfKJ1yyp9vCKg== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: asc8X5kXe7k7tnwARv7JxR+5vErbFuW7TU0EnD55QSbQ 1495730394 Received: from [10.141.98.13] (mobile-166-170-34-50.mycingular.net [166.170.34.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F28567E88C; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Peter Saint-Andre X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304) In-Reply-To: <03B41048-501F-4EF7-9051-F28461E433C0@viagenie.ca> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Cc: peter@filament.com, Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com, precis@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <03B41048-501F-4EF7-9051-F28461E433C0@viagenie.ca> To: Marc Blanchet Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 16:39:57 -0000 I am aware of no such IPR. Peter Sent from mobile, might be terse=20 > On May 25, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Marc Blanchet wr= ote: >=20 > Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? i= f yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? >=20 > Marc. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Thu May 25 09:40:22 2017 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 440E81294EC for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=CkO4PX/j; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KeiglOWC 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 hp82BrEk_Tx0 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030DD127011 for ; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA2D20C8E; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 May 2017 12:40:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=1gyJK/0JBo0Ep7k6oV W6tnpNwk9sptkTVAH/CigMV0Q=; b=CkO4PX/j0/dBbbexZOXnHFHpkEhLxRemBM PZ9PwWtCBxpxDO+EBNtDRawl3TwqzPT2ZeJVlPpPZA7aqwG6SzvsCqrkhjYrj/dG V3B/+a5pRECNjEh1SMLuedX1nnpnS/7VZThN1K+oC2S9MPqhKUYluW2rg7IB5beG 5JSKef4BkJT+PQFwDQTE1SSALVN5qHZla/TSPLoZD2xZ38WPTEDUdDfZU4zrurKe zCwxWfKNIOTmyWud1FrFpf/gplmdkFMxDyfSRNN9t2bOr7FbRS3h9VN9LE/yk89W CH/qz6f8zwgLMjqJp1+tHFqyE9DW/5ygXGLbe4D7wtpZREfSzj6Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=1gyJK/0JBo0Ep7k6oVW6tnpNwk9sptkTVAH/CigMV0Q=; b=KeiglOWC khiVvucvMcImd5uaWkChjufpy6AhUd+x41L2+Q1hRbmgAX6tTmJnR9QabU66mK+Q fpS9PHppyCceoQZ9BpzFw9xxrJruuFDW+Jn9ECY5xjWw9GoS1+Hnwr5Dw2nAag/7 ClqleRR/Wj/AUqI/HLWPmdfxb3PypCHYABxGW7rCkzXvNeyyUsGfOidJ1E7pTiK8 31az8eGSfC1gzAMkOi8jBfotEptoOqQFAAyMNeVzxMIQRePU/5FpgXwSnlUMw+cZ OGEZ/sTw1W8Qr7VbU4IGuwmbMdBbmQbaIAywMXviD7EVHKucix0B2FKOTBE8m/BN 05LusYAyPv5dqg== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: DvNc3YiCF+wqm1+wI8e/+Dm1EmDbWf1LGe7DXx5W6aAR 1495730418 Received: from [10.141.98.13] (mobile-166-170-34-50.mycingular.net [166.170.34.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 19CD97E98B; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Peter Saint-Andre X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304) In-Reply-To: <56817976-68B0-44D2-9C5E-2542C7931FB9@viagenie.ca> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:40:17 -0400 Cc: peter@filament.com, precis@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <47211264-693A-47BF-9318-E5AAC744664D@stpeter.im> References: <56817976-68B0-44D2-9C5E-2542C7931FB9@viagenie.ca> To: Marc Blanchet Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7700bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 16:40:20 -0000 I am aware of no such IPR. Peter Sent from mobile, might be terse=20 > On May 25, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Marc Blanchet wr= ote: >=20 > Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? i= f yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? >=20 > Marc. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > precis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Tue May 30 08:19:13 2017 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 DFFD2128BB6 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 d--MfZqdPkLN for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18A9127180 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.123.31.198] (h198.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.198]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D4564782E for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 11:19:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc Blanchet" To: precis@ietf.org Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 11:19:10 -0400 Message-ID: <680DBC3F-DA5F-428C-A186-8AAFE26A3815@viagenie.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: [precis] docs going to IESG X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 30 May 2017 15:19:13 -0000 Hello, I’ve uploaded the shepherd writeup to the data tracker. Tried to push the state of the documents to « Submit to IESG » but was not able for some reasons. Escalating with the AD. So that is why you may see additional admin messages in the coming minutes and days. Overall, consider them as sent to IESG. Regards, Marc. From nobody Tue May 30 09:19:01 2017 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 B448F127241 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com 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 ehIiD7PBAg83 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401331200E5 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1496161136; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=xbF9Z9QlBa5VI6rm+2b9/tTyxPP75c+FRUwBCZc97xM=; 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=taIPd4M5/RVUJKlZsG6NB+jEIVHOMEB6qlnfR2SnKNb9TMTDHyeBrqKM17PPUFtJrYK1x3 zttJjzkuJ9xnJ0tCTudcoDOgE5HbD0ImqcumpOcnhEN9pEALey+A/HX2ublaMxh1gDThAa gid3og2XiAF13nc5i+ClQ/xMbWWWOBE=; Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Tue, 30 May 2017 17:18:56 +0100 To: Marc Blanchet Cc: peter@filament.com, precis@ietf.org References: <03B41048-501F-4EF7-9051-F28461E433C0@viagenie.ca> From: Alexey Melnikov Message-ID: <91161145-23ab-773f-b439-67cde76613dd@isode.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:18:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [precis] IPR on draft-ietf-precis-7613bis X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 30 May 2017 16:19:00 -0000 On 25/05/2017 17:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I am aware of no such IPR. I am not aware of any IPR either. > Peter > > Sent from mobile, might be terse > >> On May 25, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >> Doing my shepherd duty, are you aware of any IPR claim on this document? if yes, have they been disclosed per BCP 78/79? >> >> Marc. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> precis mailing list >> precis@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis From nobody Tue May 30 09:49:39 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88099129AC5; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:49:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.52.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: Marc Blanchet , precis@ietf.org, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca, draft-ietf-precis-7564bis@ietf.org, precis-chairs@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <149616297446.14763.1302524851890502582.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:49:34 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] Last Call: (PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:49:35 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings WG (precis) to consider the following document: - 'PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-06-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Application protocols using Unicode code points in protocol strings need to properly handle such strings in order to enforce internationalization rules for strings placed in various protocol slots (such as addresses and identifiers) and to perform valid comparison operations (e.g., for purposes of authentication or authorization). This document defines a framework enabling application protocols to perform the preparation, enforcement, and comparison of internationalized strings ("PRECIS") in a way that depends on the properties of Unicode code points and thus is more agile with respect to versions of Unicode. As a result, this framework provides a more sustainable approach to the handling of internationalized strings than the previous framework, known as Stringprep (RFC 3454). This document obsoletes RFC 7564. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7564bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7564bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Tue May 30 09:50:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD258129AD1; Tue, 30 May 2017 09:50:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.52.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: draft-ietf-precis-7700bis@ietf.org, Marc Blanchet , precis@ietf.org, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca, precis-chairs@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <149616301076.14821.16928276397269578825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:50:10 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] Last Call: (Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:50:11 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings WG (precis) to consider the following document: - 'Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-06-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes methods for handling Unicode strings representing memorable, human-friendly names (called "nicknames", "display names", or "petnames") for people, devices, accounts, websites, and other entities. This document obsoletes RFC 7700. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Wed May 31 13:10:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: precis@ietf.org Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CBA129AD3; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Russ Housley To: Cc: precis@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-precis-7700bis.all@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.52.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149626145570.19916.16628797750334932421@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:10:55 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [precis] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07 X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:10:56 -0000 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2017-05-31 IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-13 IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06 Summary: Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: None Nits: Section 2.3 includes this note: Note: An entity SHOULD NOT apply the Case Mapping Rule during enforcement, because typically it is appropriate only during comparison. I question the inclusion of "typically" in this note. Can you simply say that the Case Mapping Rule SHOULD only be used during comparison?