Subject: [xmpp] stringprep: full, partial, none

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:27:07 -0700

Here is the main issue that concerns the XMPP WG.

IIRC the group did not consider "partial stringprep" (switch to IDNA2008
but keep using nodeprep and resourceprep), only "full stringprep" (keep
using IDNA2003 along with nodeprep and resourceprep) and "no stringprep"
(wait until the PRECIS WG finishes its work, then switch to IDNA2008 and
whatever replaces nodeprep and resourceprep).

/psa

#######################################################################

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's DISCUSS and COMMENT on
draft-ietf-xmpp-address-07
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:25:30 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
To: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked],
The IESG <[email-masked]>

On 11/22/10 8:39 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> On 11/19/10 5:20 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>  
>>
> [...]
> 
>>> 4). DISCUSS DISCUSS: Should domainpart be migrated to IDNA2008 now?
>>> Apps Area is pretty much requiring use of IDNA2008 in all documents.
>>>   
>> This spec documents the legacy usage as a placeholder while the XMPP
>> community contributes to the PRECIS WG in its work on a replacement for
>> stringprep. I think the XMPP WG agreed that it would move away from
>> stringprep for all parts of a JID at the same time -- not temporarily
>> replace IDNA2003 with IDNA2008 for the domainpart but keep using
>> stringprep for the localpart and resourcepart pending the output of the
>> PRECIS WG, and then switch the localpart and resourcepart over to a
>> non-stringprep approach once the PRECIS WG is done.
>>  
>>
> Firstly, I think a statement on this should be made in the document.

We tried to say that in the introduction.

> Secondly, there is no "temporary replace IDNA2003 with IDNA2008" ;-).
> IDNA2003 is gone. 

By temporary I meant:

1. do IDNA2008 + nodeprep + resourceprep for a while (part-stringprep)

2. then do IDNA2008 + precis-based solutions for nodeprep and
resourceprep (no-stringprep)

vs.

1a. do IDNA2003 + nodeprep + resourceprep for a while more (full
stringprep), until we can do #2

> If IDNA2008 has issues, than it needs to be fixed.

I see no issues with IDNA2008.

> I am also concerned about the possibility of Precis WG failing to
> deliver a Stringprep-bis, or doing it very slowly. 

One solution is to push forward as fast as possible with PRECIS. :)

> I suspect soon
> registries will start allowing registrations of domains with Unicode
> characters that map differently under IDNA2008 and IDNA2003 and that
> would cause an interop issue.

Yes, that is a concern.

I think we want to move to IDNA2008 with all due speed. The alternatives
listed above (1=>2 vs. 1a=>2) were not explicitly presented to the XMPP
WG, so that would need to happen. If I recall correctly, most people
seemed to be thinking that the alternatives were all-stringprep or
no-stringprep, not part-stringrep for a while and then no-stringprep.

#######################################################################

---

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:57:21 -0700

As an individual, not chair:

The domainpart is often user-entered in our world, and has always been
written down on business cards and the like with the expectation that it
would be case-folded before comparison or DNS lookup.  Switching to the
dangerously incomplete IDNA2008, which does not specify any canonicalization
is not an option for us, in my opinion.  We would also have to specify
something nameprep-like, and I'd much rather wait on the output of the
Précis working group.

I also don't want to hold up 3920bis and 3921bis waiting for that uncertain
future.  If the IESG didn't want us to keep using nameprep, they should have
forced the IDNA2008 team to complete their work, coming up with a
replacement.

In the meantime, I think sticking with nodeprep/nameprep/resourceprep for
the short term is the best of what are all bad options.

On 11/22/10 12:27 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp

-- 
Joe Hildebrand