Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] [newprep] WG Review: Stringprep after IDNA2008 WG (newprep)

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:05:46 -0400

>>>>> "Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
    Jiankang> prioritize the things.  sometimes, the easier one first;
    Jiankang> sometimes, the difficult one first.
Sure.
That's fine for the WG to do.
I don't think it is good to do in the charter without  some fairness
    Jiankang> criteria.
All items brought up by the time external review of the charter
    Jiankang> concluded seems like a reasonable fairness criteria.
Putting the cutoff before that seems unreasonable.

Obviously, the WG can internally prioritize (and change its priorities)
within its normal administrative processes.

    Jiankang> If peter's list is not ok for you, could you kindly give
    Jiankang> us your list?

The list in the charter plus:

1) Considering Kerberos implications for SASLPREP revisions
2) Considering RFC 4282.

Both of these are stringprep issues.  Kerberos has been intending to use
SASLPREP; if you revise SASLPREP without considering what happens for
Kerberos, then you'll just end up revising it yet again later.

NAIs seem to use more of the IDNA2003 rules than just the IDNA 2003
stringprep profile, but they do use that profile as well.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:01:20 -0400

>>>>> "Alexey" == Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> Sure.  That's fine for the WG to do.  I don't think it is good to
    >> do in the charter without some fairness criteria.  All items
    >> brought up by the time external review of the charter concluded
    >> seems like a reasonable fairness criteria.  Putting the cutoff
    >> before that seems unreasonable.
    >> 
    >> Obviously, the WG can internally prioritize (and change its
    >> priorities) within its normal administrative processes.
    >> 
    >> 1) Considering Kerberos implications for SASLPREP revisions
    Alexey> Sam, I think this is granted. I don't think this needs to be
    Alexey> written into the charter, especially considering that there
    Alexey> is a good deal of overlap between people active in Kerberos
    Alexey> and SASL WGs.

I'm totally happy with that interpretation.

    >> 2) Considering RFC 4282.
    Alexey> Do you consider RFC 4282 to be a stringprep profile? My
    Alexey> quick scan of the document (in particular Section 2.4) is
    Alexey> not conclusive.

It's my read that section 2.4 invokes all of toascii from IDNA 2003,

which definitely implies stringprep under the covers.  However, I think
the spec is kind of broken both for IDNA2003 and IDNA2008; if you take a
look at the proposed erata aspects of the AAA community agree.  The
solution is probably not going to be a stringprep profile, although the
solution is probably not going to be any more complicated than something
like XMPP's solution.  However, I definitely think the AAA community
needs to have some internationalization experts to talk to in order to
have a chance of success.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:06:03 +0100

Sam Hartman wrote:

>criteria.
>concluded seems like a reasonable fairness criteria.
Sam,
I think this is granted. I don't think this needs to be written into the 
charter, especially considering that there is a good deal of overlap 
between people active in Kerberos and SASL WGs.

>2) Considering RFC 4282.
Do you consider RFC 4282 to be a stringprep profile? My quick scan of 
the document (in particular Section 2.4) is not conclusive.