IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] David Harrington's Discuss ondraft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Thu, 10 March 2011 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697D43A6803; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 1dN0MF+bAs40; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE4E3A67D6; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:50:09 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=obWFum/MLDrTDqhgggTrFnEIN9oZL4SUmVMh/U/DhdhXdak+FbqiXkCojDot2fpf; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.41.49.222] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1PxWuK-0007UF-Ky; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:51:24 -0500
Message-ID: <002c01cbded6$7567dde0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <201103091334.p29DYX1F016190@idle.juniper.net> <003c01cbde84$f7e01be0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20110309203436.GB43502@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:51:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888d26d9b9edb73dbfb8285b063fc43658675c7184d2b4a2c2c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.49.222
Cc: netconf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis@tools.ietf.org, ietfdbh@comcast.net, netconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] David Harrington's Discuss ondraft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:50:12 -0000

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "Phil Shafer" <phil@juniper.net>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis@tools.ietf.org>; <ietfdbh@comcast.net>;
<netconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; <netconf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] David Harrington's Discuss ondraft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:08:16AM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > Since these things would need to be matched, I tried to find where the
> > document spells out which normalization form is to be used.  I couldn't.
> > Did I miss something, or is the choice of normalization form left to the
> > implementors' imaginations?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence> makes an
> interesting recommendation that applications should preserve input
> code points, only normalizing strings to the application's preferred
> normal form for internal use only...
>
> YANG does not force a normalization for the string type. It tries to
> preserve them.

Let me re-ask the question with an example.
How are implementations required to treat the sequence
U+0061 U+0308 and  U+00E4 in user names?  Are they
identical, different, or is the answer implementation-specific?
(Both are "ä".)

Randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email