Subject: [precis] Belated WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-precis-nickname-15

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:51:48 -0600

(Apologies again for a belated WGLC review. Please feel free to ignore 
this if it's become moot.)

I think this is basically done, and I support it's publication. I only 
have one comment:

- Table 2, last row:

I did not find a proscription against zero length strings in the text, 
other than a comment that applications can set minimum and maximum 
sizes. It's quite possible I missed it. Or is this is a property of the 
FreeFormClass? (For comparison, I note that the saslprepbis draft 
explicitly forbids zero length strings.)

/Ben

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:53:09 -0700

> explicitly forbids zero length strings.)

Yes, it would be good to add a rule about that. I find it difficult to 
think of an instance where a zero-length string makes sense within 
PRECIS, but we don't prohibit them in the framework so we'll need to do 
that in each profile. Something for profile authors to pay attention to 
(and, unfortunately, forget to address).

Peter

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:09:40 -0600

On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:53, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

> PRECIS, but we don't prohibit them in the framework so we'll need to 
> do that in each profile. Something for profile authors to pay 
> attention to (and, unfortunately, forget to address).

I'm neutral as to whether the profile needs to outlaw zero length 
strings or leave that to the application. My point wasn't that I think 
we need the rule, it was that the table assumes the rule.

/Ben

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:15:09 -0700

> we need the rule, it was that the table assumes the rule.

True. But I do think that a zero-length nickname makes no sense.

Peter

P.S. I'm sorry that this work has held up draft-ietf-simple-chat for so 
long!