Subject: [newprep] proposed charter

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:54:47 -0600

As a follow-up to IETF 77, Marc and I have been working on a revised
charter. Feedback is welcome.

###

Proposed Charter for NewPrep WG
Version: 0.5
Last Updated: 2010-04-07

Problem Statement

The use of non-ASCII strings in Internet protocols requires additional
processing to be handled properly.  As part of the Internationalized
Domain Names (idn) work in 2003, a method for preparation and comparison
of internationalized strings was defined and generalized to be re-used
by other protocols.  This "stringprep" method [RFC 3454] defines the
overall framework whereas specific protocols define their own profiles.
Known existing IETF profiles are:

- The Nameprep profile [RFC 3490] for use in Internationalized Domain
  Names in Applications (IDNA)
- The iSCSI profile [RFC 3722] for use in Internet Small Computer
  Systems Interface (iSCSI) Names
- The Nodeprep and Resourceprep profiles [RFC 3920] for use in the
  Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
- The Policy MIB profile [RFC 4011] for use in the Simple Network
  Management Protocol (SNMP)
- The SASLprep profile [RFC 4013] for use in the Simple Authentication
  and Security Layer (SASL)
- The trace profile [RFC 4505] for use with the SASL ANONYMOUS
  mechanism
- The LDAP profile (RFC 4518] for use with LDAP

The IAB completed a review of IDN and made recommendations for changes
[RFC 4690], which triggered a new version of the IDNA protocol called
IDNA2008.  Whereas IDNA2003 was tied to Unicode 3.2 via stringprep,
IDNA2008 does not use the stringprep method, but instead uses an
algorithm based on the properties of Unicode characters, which makes it
agile to the Unicode database version.  The protocols using stringprep
need Unicode version agility and therefore need to investigate how to
move from the current stringprep approach, with the associated
challenges of backward compatibility and migration.

Objectives

The goal of this group is to assess whether a new method based on the
new IDNA2008 algorithmic approach is the appropriate path forward for
existing stringprep protocols as well as for other application protocols
requiring internationalized strings.

The group will evaluate if a new generalized framework based on the
algorithmic approach is appropriate and, if so, define it.

The group will analyze existing stringprep profiles and will do one of
the following with regard to each profile:

1. Develop a replacement for the profile in close collaboration with the
related protocol working group.

2. Collaborate with another active working group which will be
developing the new profile as part of its charter.

3. Advise the authors of profiles that were produced outside the context
of any working group regarding how to proceed.

The group will also define a set of best current practices for
preparation and comparison of internationalized strings.

In completing its tasks, the working group should collaborate with other
teams involved in internationalized identifiers, such as the IETF's IRI
and EAI working groups as well as other relevant standards development
organizations (e.g., the Unicode Consortium).

Deliverables

1. Problem statement / analysis of existing stringprep profiles
(Informational).

2. Possible new framework to replace stringprep (Standards Track).

3. Possible replacements for existing stringprep profiles (Standards Track).

4. Internationalization guidelines (BCP).

Milestones

Aug 2010 - Accept problem statement document as a WG item
Nov 2010 - Accept framework document as a WG item
Nov 2010 - Accept new profile documents as WG items
Dec 2010 - Start Working Group Last Call on problem statement document
Jan 2011 - Submit problem statement document to the IESG
Jan 2011 - Accept guidelines document as a WG item
May 2011 - Start Working Group Last Call on framework document
May 2011 - Start Working Group Last Call on new profile documents
Jun 2011 - Submit framework document to the IESG
Jun 2011 - Submit new profile documents to the IESG
Jun 2011 - Start Working Group Last Call on guidelines document
Aug 2011 - Submit guidelines document to the IESG

###

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:51:08 +0100

>charter. Feedback is welcome.
This looks good.
A couple of minor comments below:
 [...]

>of any working group regarding how to proceed.
I think it doesn't matter if a stringprep profile was produced in a WG, 
what matters if there is a current WG related to the profile.
 [...]

>3. Possible replacements for existing stringprep profiles (Standards Track).
IESG would probably like to see a specific list of profiles, not an open 
ended list. This can be used to explicitly exclude some profiles, if 
desired.
But either way the charter should explicitly state that it will only 
work on a fixed list of profiles (and working on new ones would require 
rechartering), or if any new profile can be added at any time.

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:13:29 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:54 AM
Subject: [newprep] proposed charte

>Deliverables
...

>4. Internationalization guidelines (BCP).

how about  rename it to "Internationalized string guidelines "?

 "Internationalization guidelines " can say many things: Internationalization whatever it is.
if we focus on stringprep, limiting the scope to the Internationalization string seems to be better.

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:23:58 -0600

> what matters if there is a current WG related to the profile.

True.

> rechartering), or if any new profile can be added at any time.

That's a good point, but on the other hand there aren't many existing
profiles. :) They're listed at the beginning of the charter. Now,
perhaps it makes sense to prioritize them, but the tasks are limited.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:38:27 -0400

> how about  rename it to "Internationalized string guidelines "?

right. I agree.

Marc.

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

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:42:04 -0400

> perhaps it makes sense to prioritize them, but the tasks are limited.

I guess there is no harm in re-listing them, but at the same time, the 
sentence in 3. includes "existing" which is a finite, well-known set. 
And I don't think we should exclude any profile at this point.

Therefore, I'm neutral to either way, but I think current text is ok, 
given the word "existing".

Marc.

> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:47:55 +0100

Marc Blanchet wrote:

> YAO Jiankang a écrit :
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Saint-Andre" 
>> <[email-masked]>
>> To: <[email-masked]>

I like this better as well. I think it would even be better to say 
"Internationalized string normalization guidelines" (change 
"normalization" to "preparation", if you think this is better.)

>> if we focus on stringprep, limiting the scope to the 
>> Internationalization string seems to be better.
>>
>>
>> Jiankang Yao
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:50:51 +0100

> sentence in 3. includes "existing" which is a finite, well-known set. 

I think this point is a bit too subtle. Does it mean "existing within IETF"?

> given the word "existing".

I can live with existing text as is. I just wanted to warn about 
possible issues during IESG review.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:33:46 -0400

> "normalization" to "preparation", if you think this is better.)

disagree. normalization is a term well known from unicode, specifying a 
  specific TR#15. We do more than normalization.

Either: "Internationalized String Guidelines" or "Internationalized 
String Preparation Guidelines"

However, I think we are getting way too much into the deep details of 
document titles...

Marc.

---

From: Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:40:52 -0700

> Proposed Charter for NewPrep WG

Looks good in general to me! 

...
> However, I think we are getting way too much into the deep details of document titles...

Indeed! For the charter, I think the above is fine. For general discussion, I have two thoughts:
1) I agree we can't use "normalization" because that has well defined meaning in Unicode
2) I dislike "Internationalization" in this context: It makes me feel like the "other" kind of string is normal, and these are "the special" ones you need to do once you're "a big boy"! Therefore, I'd tend toward titles like "Unicode String Preparation Guidelines" or just "String Preparation Guidelines".

> Milestones
I'm a little concerned that the new profile documents generally proceed the more general guidelines document. I admit that there is a chicken-and-egg problem here, but I'd worry that we're signing up to deliver profile recommendations for the specific protocols before we've come to closure on the general framework, and so run the risk that those profiles may not conform to the final guidelines.

Mind you, the dates are close, perhaps we are only expecting the dotting of 'ı's and crossing of 't's in the guidelines document after the profiles go to Last Call.

	- Mark

Mark Lentczner
Sr. Systems Architect
Technology Integration
Linden Lab

[email-masked]

Zero Linden
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:25:01 -0600

> Looks good in general to me!

Super, thanks for the feedback.

> 2) I dislike "Internationalization" in this context: It makes me feel
> like the "other" kind of string is normal, and these are "the special"
> ones you need to do once you're "a big boy"! Therefore, I'd tend toward
> titles like "Unicode String Preparation Guidelines" or just "String
> Preparation Guidelines".

I like "String Preparation Guidelines".

>> Milestones
> I'm a little concerned that the new profile documents generally proceed
> the more general guidelines document. I admit that there is a
> chicken-and-egg problem here, but I'd worry that we're signing up to
> deliver profile recommendations for the specific protocols before we've
> come to closure on the general framework, and so run the risk that those
> profiles may not conform to the final guidelines.

Yes, I think those efforts need to proceed in parallel.

> Mind you, the dates are close, perhaps we are only expecting the dotting
> of 'ı's and crossing of 't's in the guidelines document after the
> profiles go to Last Call.

That's how I see it.

Nice use of U+0131 there. ;-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/