Re: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 30 December 2014 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7B21A1B38; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:54:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 MxEpLIRfhwq1; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584C01A1B30; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3C226405D; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=mmDSjRzyNpJthiy/jyTT eB2bfRM=; b=JogWYS+pDtc/zsQiWlQ4sXppvXObwAhj2cdv543QHfSF3O1Udh9n B5qxeRUuVauDj2H2wXQJLyHEuNKZ+7yPz6L3FaYphPYw1QOm62UarhToYUVJBbxi BDuSN7w6H3cAMGVn2gHwwp1l4KNeLWwcKvQ69KDAAFw+vRjoNgf7NUk=
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC640264057; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l15so24483343wiw.14; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.190.46 with SMTP id gn14mr56854553wjc.36.1419969233536; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.7.206 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:53:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412300946340.4549@keflavik>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412161359100.4549@keflavik> <CAB6OCMvGxT99cGGBSBbz=XU2+F1xRzBa97z6dY-qPSJk1GWXyQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141217230150.GB9443@localhost> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412171513520.4549@keflavik> <CAK3OfOjnRCmiu-TKCJ-AFanpCsqnw1o2w_EC2AKMUnQ2A4DqVw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412292234010.1509@keflavik> <CAK3OfOgm_ZYj-rY+4ExZzY8KY4G3rz2KLrZ8hQJi7ZUR4yiP0Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412300946340.4549@keflavik>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:53:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOha9qu=uDtqwDTdV78waLMaorYq0T6cq1YX3VzQn2OpKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uLcrsJ1TWXjdZMBUNIHXy5B6if0
Cc: Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat@oracle.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:54:01 -0000

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Nico Williams wrote:
>>Better not even think about saying anything about normalization,
>>right?  PKCS#11 nowadays supports UTF-8 for the strings we care about,
>>but says nothing about normalization.  I suppose you could say that
>>matching should be (lowercase) normalization-insensitive.  In practice
>>it will never matter (which is why the lowercase).
>
>         hi Nico, I assume you talk about case normalization now.  I
> also agree we need not to say anything about it - and we don't aside
> from "case normalization" as defined in 6.2.2.1 of RFC 3986 where only
> the following sections are relevant to us:

No, I meant Unicode normalization.  It's a messy business.  Better say
nothing, because I think the thing to do is obvious enough, but if we
must say anything, it's that the various strings (e.g., token manuf)
are to be compared normalization-insensitively.

Nico
--