Subject: Re: New text is authentication/authorization id description (section 4.2)

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:05:42 -0500

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

    Alexey> Any normalization of the authorization identity is defined
    Alexey> within each SASL protocol profile, and occurs before the
    Alexey> authorization identity is handed to the mechanism.  The
    Alexey> mechanism may not modify (by, e.g., normalization) the
    Alexey> authorization identity.

I do not believe there is currently a consensus to make a statement as
strong as this.  I agree the mechanism should not modify the
characters of the authorization identity, but as I said over the
weekend I'm unclear that we prohibit modifying the encoding.

If you want to make that change that's possible, if the working group
supports it, but I just want to all it out as a new change that needs
discussion.

--Sam

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:54:39 +0900

At 05:06 AM 3/1/2004, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>Any normalization of the authorization identity is defined within each
>SASL protocol profile, and occurs before the authorization identity is handed to the mechanism.

What is the normalized (canonical) string form an email address?
What is the normalized (canonical) string form of a domain name?
What is the normalized (canonical) string form of a distinguished name?

While it possible to define normalized forms for each, these
definitions, to the best of my knowledge, presently do not
exist presently.

That is, my email address is commonly written "[email-masked]",
"[email-masked]", and number of other ways.  Which
representation is normalized one?

Kurt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:23:31 +0900

>weekend I'm unclear that we prohibit modifying the encoding.
I am not sure what you mean in the last sentence.

To me this text says that normalization is up to a protocol profile. It 
doesn't talk about encoding (which is mechanism specific), because 
encoding is not a "modification". Maybe it should?

>supports it, but I just want to all it out as a new change that needs
I agree that this needs discussion (although this is not a new issue, it 
is a continuation of the issue raised by Simon)

Alexey

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:20:20 +0900

>representation is normalized one?
I think I understand what you are talking about. Normalization is not to 
be confused with Unicode Normalization.
Suggestion for a better term is welcomed.

Alexey

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:05:42 -0500

--Sam

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:54:39 +0900

Kurt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:23:31 +0900

Alexey

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:20:20 +0900

Alexey