Re: [saag] i18n requirements (was: Re: NF* (Re: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call))

[Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Gutmann
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>I would urge, as I think I did before, some fairly strong warnings that, at
>>>least until the issues are clarified in PKCS#11 itself, one should be very
>>>certain one knows what one is doing (and what the consequences of one's
>>>choices will be) if one decides to move beyond the safety and general
>>>understanding of the ASCII/ ISO 646/ IA5 letter and digit repertoire.
>> I'd go even further than that and just mandate MUST ASCII.  This is a simple
>> means of pointing to a PKCS #11 object, not a universal means of communicating
>> abstract concepts in any language known to man.
>
>Correct, but that can be done by the OASIS PKCS #11 group, not by
>IETF. Here the draft proposes a way to expose PKCS #11 objects/tokens
>as a URI. It cannot mandate the format of the PKCS #11 attributes a
>module will contain.

	hi Nikos, I agree with Nico that RECOMMENDed for ASCII use in 
labels would be fine.  I'm gonna leave the new text for the new draft 
18 discussing issues with the PKCS#11 spec not being clear about how 
to normalize UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, and what is our 
recommendation with regard to that.  I will revisit it today and send 
a new version draft for draft 18 here.  J.

-- 
Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>