IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Thu, 15 November 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3775B21F8947 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4m1s3aa46Owe for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6184E21F8945 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKU4zLIRMEvMCn0p6CHvy1SN6DHH/X2+@postini.com; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:42 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAFIlbdD032464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:47:37 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:47:37 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNw2DXip6TzyATVkig3JGUKj/VFJfrOzrw
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:47:37 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:47:44 -0000

In the absence of guidance to the contrary I think it's safe to pick a convention and document it. As noted earlier, I can't find anything in the references that addresses key case, either.

Scott

From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Scott,

My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is Unicode, but it says nothing about case sensitivity.  Unless there are aspects of Unicode I don't understand (quite possible), I imagine then it's up to the application to decide (and specify) whether key searches within an object are case-sensitive.

The working copies of our drafts all use lowercase now, so at least they're consistent.  The question before us, then, is whether we need to say we expect matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email