Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:21:04 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 21Apr2015
IETF LC End Date: 28Apr2015
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled

Summary: Ready for publication as Proposed Standard with one minor nit

This is a very easy to read document for such a detail-rich protocol.

Nit:

The introduction calls out email addresses as an example of the kinds of 
strings these methods are not intended for use in preparing (along with 
LDAP distinguished names). But in the body of the document, email 
addresses (or strings that look just like them) are discussed as valid 
examples of usernames.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:50:43 +0100

Hi Robert,

On 21/04/2015 21:21, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Nit:
>
> The introduction calls out email addresses as an example of the kinds 
> of strings these methods are not intended for use in preparing (along 
> with LDAP distinguished names). But in the body of the document, email 
Email address like things are commonly used as usernames, but strictly 
speaking they are 2 different types of objects. How do you think we can 
make this clearer?

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:03:30 -0500

On 4/22/15 5:50 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> with LDAP distinguished names). But in the body of the document, 
>> email addresses (or strings that look just like them) are discussed 
>> as valid examples of usernames.
> speaking they are 2 different types of objects. How do you think we 
> can make this clearer?
I don't think drawing the distinction helps the document. Peter's 
suggestion wfm.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:44:13 -0600

> This is a very easy to read document for such a detail-rich protocol.

Thanks.

> addresses (or strings that look just like them) are discussed as valid

Long answer:

At some point, we modified the definition of the UsernameCaseMapped and 
UsernameCasePreserved profiles so that they could be used directly in 
HTTP authentication (see Section 2.1 of 
draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update) and thus so that we could avoid 
having multiple profiles for username-like identifiers. That 
necessitated adding the '@' character to the username profiles, but we 
never updated the text in the introduction to reflect that fact.

Short answer:

s/email addresses//

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/