Subject: [xmpp] WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:50:32 -0500

This is a Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11. The draft is available at the following URL:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11

The WGLC will conclude on 31 March, 2014. Please send your comments to the authors and the XMPP mailing list.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:39:13 -0500

Just a reminder, there's a little more than a week left in this WGLC. If people have sent comments so far, I have not seen them.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:58:36 -0600

I've finished reviewing draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11.  I mostly think
this document is ready to be published.  I think it deals with the
internationalization issues at hand as well as can be expected.

However, in 3.2. Domainpart, I wonder about the following:

  4.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied to the domainpart,
       such as those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] or [RFC5895].

As far as I can tell, just about all of the suggested mappings from
RFC5895 are already required here.  But for any that are not, I worry
about the potential for interoperability problems if say two servers
communicating with each other apply different mappings.  It might be
best to strike this bullet from the list.

Less concerning to me is in 3.3. Localpart:

   2.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied, such as those
       defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].

I think there is less concern about interoperability problems here,
but I wonder if it is of any real utility.

The similar language in 3.4. Resourcepart is not concerning to me at
all; there are some cases where additional mappings are desirable
(e.g., MUC nicknames), and I think the language makes it clear that
anything beyond "it's opaque" is to be approached with care.

Thoughts?

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:16:45 -0600

On 3/25/14, 1:58 PM, Matt Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>

Yes, I think you are right that it would be best to remove this step. 
While updating draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis last night, I removed any 
mention of additional mappings from the password algorithm, for similar 
reasons.

> but I wonder if it is of any real utility.

In saslprepbis, we've changed the username text to read:

    3.  So-called additional mappings MAY be applied, such as mapping of
        delimiters (e.g., characters such as '@', ':', '/', '+', and '-')
        and special handling of certain characters or classes of
        characters (e.g., mapping of non-ASCII spaces to ASCII space or
        mapping of control characters to nothing); the PRECIS mappings
        document [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] describes such mappings in
        more detail.

However, that kind of mapping doesn't apply to XMPP localparts because 
we profile the PRECIS IdentifierClass, which prohibits punctuation and 
space characters outside the ASCII7 range, control characters, etc. So 
IMHO it's unnecessary for localparts.

> anything beyond "it's opaque" is to be approached with care.

Agreed, although I'd change the bullet to mostly or entirely match what 
I added to draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis.

Peter

---

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:25:46 -0600

On 3/25/14, 2:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> I've finished reviewing draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-11.  I mostly
>> think this document is ready to be published.  I think it deals
>> with the internationalization issues at hand as well as can be
>> expected.
>> 
>> 4.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied to the
>> domainpart, such as those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]
>> or [RFC5895].
>> 
>> As far as I can tell, just about all of the suggested mappings
>> from RFC5895 are already required here.  But for any that are
>> not, I worry about the potential for interoperability problems if
>> say two servers communicating with each other apply different
>> mappings.  It might be best to strike this bullet from the list.
> 
> Yes, I think you are right that it would be best to remove this
> step. While updating draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis last night, I
> removed any mention of additional mappings from the password
> algorithm, for similar reasons.
> 
>> 2.  So-called "additional mappings" MAY be applied, such as
>> those defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].
>> 
>> I think there is less concern about interoperability problems
>> here, but I wonder if it is of any real utility.
> 
> 3.  So-called additional mappings MAY be applied, such as mapping
> of delimiters (e.g., characters such as '@', ':', '/', '+', and
> '-') and special handling of certain characters or classes of 
> document [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] describes such mappings in more
> detail.
> 
> However, that kind of mapping doesn't apply to XMPP localparts
> because we profile the PRECIS IdentifierClass, which prohibits
> punctuation and space characters outside the ASCII7 range, control
> characters, etc. So IMHO it's unnecessary for localparts.
> 

Agreed.

>> The similar language in 3.4. Resourcepart is not concerning to me
>> at all; there are some cases where additional mappings are
>> desirable (e.g., MUC nicknames), and I think the language makes
>> it clear that anything beyond "it's opaque" is to be approached
>> with care.
> 
> Agreed, although I'd change the bullet to mostly or entirely match
> what I added to draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis.
> 

That works for me.

- -- 
- - m&m

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:27:51 -0600

>> characters, etc. So IMHO it's unnecessary for localparts.

I looked at that text again and made a few changes (we're not mapping 
delimiters, we're mapping characters that are similar to delimiters):

    3.  So-called additional mappings MAY be applied, such as mapping of
        characters that are similar to common delimiters (such as '@',
        ':', '/', '+', '-', and '.', e.g., mapping of IDEOGRAPHIC FULL
        STOP (U+3002) to FULL STOP (U+002E)) and special handling of
        certain characters or classes of characters (e.g., mapping of
        non-ASCII spaces to ASCII space); the PRECIS mappings document
        [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings] describes such mappings in more
        detail.

>> what I added to draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis.

Great.

Thanks again for the review.

Peter