Subject: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198?

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:25:53 +0200

I know it is quite late now that the I-D is in AUTH48 but I'm bothered
by a recent (outside WG, it seems) addition.

RFC 5198 is a normative reference. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt says:

  The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language, 
  with the possible exception of the KeyID in TWAMP-Control, which is 
  encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629, RFC5198]. 

This was apparently added in response to IESG comments like Chris
Newman's remark in <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2229/>.

Does it mean that a TWAMP implementation MUST canonicalize the KeyID
according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious
for me.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:45:48 +0200

> according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious

Al, Keynam, others.

Since we have another bug to be discussed by the WG, can you also
address this one?

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:16:08 -0400

>according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious

Stephane,

Chris asked to include the UTF-8 reference in this section,
and in a subsequent e-mail the 5198 reference, and both add
clarity to what "UTF-8" is and its use in protocols. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp/comment/84276/?

Otherwise, the wording of this text in this section is identical
to OWAMP's:
>9.  Internationalization Considerations
>
>    with the possible exception of the KeyID in OWAMP-Control, which is
>    encoded in UTF-8.

There are no RFC 2119 requirement terms in section 9 of either OWAMP
or TWAMP. KeyID is only mentioned as a "possible exception".

IMO, inserting references (normative or informative)
does not add requirements unless the text specifies it
(and the level of requirement, using RFC 2119 terms).

Al