SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names and Passwords
draft-ietf-sasl-saslprep-10
Yes
(Russ Housley)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-15)
Unknown
One sigh: The formality of stringprep profiles is VERY high. I wish it could include even ONE example of "string before and after". I'm pretty sure this profile is case-sensitive (a and A do not match), but that is specified by omission, not commission (nothing about case folding). An example would probably make that 100% clear.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-04-15)
Unknown
One thing I think this document is missing is an applicabilty
statement. I.e, what I assume the applicability is is something like
the following:
This document provides a way for protocols to specify comparisons
of user identifiers and other "string" objects in a
character-encoding neutral way. This document by itself does not
change any existing protocols. Any protocol that wishes to use the
techniques described in this document needs to explicitely do so,
through a published RFC, in which precise details are given as to
what objects are to be compared in the manner described in this
document.
Or something like that. Right?