Subject: [precis] IETF78 Maastricht PRECIS Working Group Meeting Minutes

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:21:31 +0200

hello,
  based on Joe's, Yoneya-san's minutes and mine, here are the minutes. 
Please send diffs to me.

Marc.
========================================

IETF78 Maastricht PRECIS Working Group Meeting Minutes

Date:   Thursday, July 29, 2010
Time:   09:00-10:30
Chairs: Marc Blanchet and Yoshiro Yoneya

1) administrativia (chairs)

Chairs: Problem statement and framework are done in parallel. Other 
deliverables are after problem statement.

2) problem statement (Blanchet)
    draft-blanchet-precis-problem-statement-00.txt

  In the charter and in initial work for problem statement, only the 
profiles registered in the IANA stringprep profile registry were looked 
at. However, it was discovered during the meeting that there are at 
least 39 RFCs referring stringprep. see:
      <http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3454.html>
not counting drafts
also: http://www.fenron.net/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?dep=rfc3454

Transition guidelines from current stringprep profiles to the new 
solution are currently not in the problem statement. It would likely be 
in another document, but more work has to be done on the solution before 
identifying the transition guidelines.

   Andrew Sullivan has kindly volunteered to be co-author of the 
problem-statement document.
   Consensus in the wg to adopt the document as WG document.

3) framework (Blanchet)
    draft-blanchet-precis-framework-00.txt

Some comments:
- SASL trace may be considered as bad. don't take care of it for now.
- "Commonly mapping to nothing" characters need extreme care for example 
used in passwords.
- Updating stringprep profiles and internationalizing them are different 
thing.
- Stringprep customers might not know internationalization well.
- Choosing NFKC at this moment is premature.  Shuold survey difference 
between NFKC and NFC.
- most likely more string classes than the two listed

  Concensus in the room that we need to survey the current 
specifications that are referring to stringprep (normative or not) to 
get a better view of the usage of stringprep, not only in the profile 
itself, but also outside of the profile (pre or post processing), and if 
the actual profile corresponds to the intent of the specification 
authors. This would help see if the proposed strawman approach in the 
framework described is the right or needs more string classes or another 
approach is needed.

   Looking for co-author(s) of the document.
   Concensus to keep the document as individual document for now. 
revisit in Beijing.

4) next steps (chairs)

   Action item: setup survey team for all existing stringprep profiles 
that are found. Chairs will browse each and create a specific ticket for 
each document referring to stringprep. The tickets will be created in 
the working group tracker: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/precis/trac/report/1

   Each ticket will be assigned to a working group member and will be 
requested to review the referring document and to provide a summary in 
the ticket.

  When the tickets will be created, the chairs will send to the wg 
mailing list a request for volunteers to take on some tickets.

  As the first reviews are done, the review team will prepare a list of 
questions/topics to be filled out as a template for the reviews. 
Starting point is the list of issues in the problem-statement document.