Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Mon, 06 October 2014 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C37F1A8890; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 213oKM4UZJVS; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.pacifier.net (smtp4.pacifier.net [64.255.237.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1952B1A6FFB; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp4.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0C3338F44; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Ted Lemon'" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <20141002111501.6046.52416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAF0C1E@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <00c601cfe1a4$15d32900$41797b00$@augustcellars.com> <7ABF79CB-61C8-490B-A727-465530222F0B@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7ABF79CB-61C8-490B-A727-465530222F0B@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:17:21 -0700
Message-ID: <00dd01cfe1aa$eba7db10$c2f79130$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFzXA7eJfgYcKZweMPGVE2DOPtSUQEciAY8Aez3c4ACI+OSpZyzMltQ
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/tuJzE9xvNfFGSPla576D_WLwd_4
Cc: jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, jose@ietf.org, draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org, 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:19:56 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:34 PM
> To: Jim Schaad
> Cc: Mike Jones; Stephen Farrell; The IESG; jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
draft-
> ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org; jose@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [jose] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-
> 33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> > I worry that if we starting providing guidance to DNS names, then we
> > need to worry about the I18N implications.  I don't remember if these
> > are both case sensitive and easy to do the case conversion on.
> 
> Isn't this a solved problem?   You convert to the unicode presentation and
> then convert to the canonical case as defined in the unicode standard.
The
> worst case scenario is that you encounter some script where this rule
doesn't
> work, and that script is then in the position that all scripts are in now.

It may be it is, however this makes an assumption that clients are up on how
to do this.  I.e. that JavaScript is going to do it right when I do a
strlower function on a string.  I don't know that this is really the case.
I would hope so but am unsure.