Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement
draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (precis WG)
Last updated 2012-10-25 (latest revision 2012-09-19)
Replaces draft-blanchet-precis-problem-statement
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document Aug 2010
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
Telechat date
Responsible AD Pete Resnick
IESG note Peter Saint-Andre (stpeter@stpeter.im) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to precis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org, stpeter@stpeter.im
Network Working Group                                        M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft                                                  Viagenie
Intended status: Informational                               A. Sullivan
Expires: March 23, 2013                                        Dyn, Inc.
                                                      September 19, 2012

            Stringprep Revision and PRECIS Problem Statement
               draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-08.txt

Abstract

   If a protocol expects to compare two strings and is prepared only for
   those strings to be ASCII, then using Unicode codepoints in those
   strings requires they be prepared somehow.  Internationalizing Domain
   Names in Applications (here called IDNA2003) defined and used
   Stringprep and Nameprep.  Other protocols subsequently defined
   Stringprep profiles.  A new approach different from Stringprep and
   Nameprep is used for a revision of IDNA2003 (called IDNA2008).  Other
   Stringprep profiles need to be similarly updated or a replacement of
   Stringprep needs to be designed.  This document outlines the issues
   to be faced by those designing a Stringprep replacement.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Blanchet & Sullivan      Expires March 23, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Stringprep Revision Problem Statement   September 2012

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Blanchet & Sullivan      Expires March 23, 2013                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Stringprep Revision Problem Statement   September 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Stringprep Profiles Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Major Topics for Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.1.1.  Types of Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.1.2.  Effect of comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Dealing with characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.2.1.  Case folding, case sensitivity, and case
               preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.2.2.  Stringprep and NFKC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.2.3.  Character mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.4.  Prohibited characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.5.  Internal structure, delimiters, and special
               characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.6.  Restrictions because of glyph similarity . . . . . . . 11
     5.3.  Where the data comes from and where it goes  . . . . . . . 11
       5.3.1.  User input and the source of protocol elements . . . . 11
       5.3.2.  User output  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.3.3.  Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Considerations for Stringprep replacement  . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  Discussion home for this draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Show full document text