Subject: [precis] I-D Action:draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:30:04 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Stringprep Revision Problem Statement
	Author(s)       : M. Blanchet, A. Sullivan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-01.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2010-12-09

Using Unicode codepoints in protocol strings that expect comparison
with other strings requires preparation of the string that contains
the Unicode codepoints.  Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications (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.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:45:41 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-01.txt

This version is an attempt to get caught up with what came out of the
Beijing meeting and the action since.  What I ran out of time to do
(google "London Ontario snowstorm" if you want) is incorporate the
items from trac in what is now Appendix A.  Apologies to those who
have worked hard on those reviews, but I wanted to get something out
with at least a little time before next week's interim teleconference.
I figured people could read the reviews in the trac.

There still are some reviews, I think, that aren't done, right?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:51:14 -0700

> I figured people could read the reviews in the trac.

Thanks for updating the problem statement!

> There still are some reviews, I think, that aren't done, right?

Correct. I will submit my review of both Nodeprep and Resourceprep
before next week's call (I hope tomorrow).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:25:37 +0000

Section 3.1.1:

       [[anchor4:
       In the Jabber discussion from Beijing, Ted Hardie asked that (1)
       actually be "codepoint for codepoint".  Is that what's intended?
       It seems to me that that is already a case of (2), because
       there's an algorithm to compare (say) my UTF-16 and your UCS-4.
       Discussion would be helpful, please. [email-masked]]]

Yes this is a case of (2), and "byte for byte" is what was intended.

(However as far as the template goes, if there is something that
supports multiple Unicode encodings and compares codepoint for
codepoint, then it would be helpful for the review to say so :)

-Dave