Return-Path: X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F62F12F1A2 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRm2qwiNNMxF for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49346128CF2 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1fqW8H-000AOl-23; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 00:13:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 00:12:59 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Mark Nottingham , "Manger, James" cc: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion Message-ID: <890B839B62C396597F601C99@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: <153439723413.3044.13789923949547859272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AA1057E-4422-4D0B-A8A3-354891F31889@mnot.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-how-did-that-get-into-the-repo-00.txt X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 04:13:15 -0000 --On Friday, August 17, 2018 11:04 +1000 Mark Nottingham wrote: >> The scheme part of URIs is case-insensitive so I'm not sure >> you can say the URI string is matched >> "character-for-character, case-sensitive". An example >> that looks like hex, but supposed to be case-sensitive is not >> ideal. > > The token should be emitted, stored and submitted in the same > form -- do you really think people will be trying to normalise > it? First of all, if a string looks like Hex, yes, I can imagine people trying to case fold it (which is different from normalizing it). More generally, while there has been a general rule all along that running text should be normalized only as part of matching or comparison operations, the rule is less clear for identifiers both because special circumstances (as in IDNA) may suggest getting things into normalized form as early as possible and keeping them that way and the consensus about other identifiers is, IMO, shifting. So, yes, depending on how those token are processed and through what, I can imagine them being normalized without those who are processing them paying much attention to whether or not that is happening. john