Re: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198?

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 18 September 2008 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ippm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DD128C2AF; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC98128C28C for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eto8TX6zQW37 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69673A6774 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1221743776!5984279!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 29686 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2008 13:16:16 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Sep 2008 13:16:16 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8IDGE76024836 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:14 -0700
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8IDGAep024799 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:10 -0700
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8IDGAqk010782 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:16:10 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8IDG8hB010778 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:16:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200809181316.m8IDG8hB010778@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080918131608gw1003snq0e>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:16:08 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:16:08 -0400
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, ippm@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org>
References: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198?
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ippm>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org

At 02:25 AM 9/18/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>I know it is quite late now that the I-D is in AUTH48 but I'm bothered
>by a recent (outside WG, it seems) addition.
>
>RFC 5198 is a normative reference. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt says:
>
>   The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language,
>   with the possible exception of the KeyID in TWAMP-Control, which is
>   encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629, RFC5198].
>
>This was apparently added in response to IESG comments like Chris
>Newman's remark in <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2229/>.
>
>Does it mean that a TWAMP implementation MUST canonicalize the KeyID
>according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious
>for me.

Stephane,

Chris asked to include the UTF-8 reference in this section,
and in a subsequent e-mail the 5198 reference, and both add
clarity to what "UTF-8" is and its use in protocols. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp/comment/84276/?

Otherwise, the wording of this text in this section is identical
to OWAMP's:
>9.  Internationalization Considerations
>
>    The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language,
>    with the possible exception of the KeyID in OWAMP-Control, which is
>    encoded in UTF-8.

There are no RFC 2119 requirement terms in section 9 of either OWAMP
or TWAMP. KeyID is only mentioned as a "possible exception".

IMO, inserting references (normative or informative)
does not add requirements unless the text specifies it
(and the level of requirement, using RFC 2119 terms).

Al 

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm