Re: [nfsv4] work items to complete rfc3530bis (what are they?)

> It's also the situation that
> at least for stringprep, there are four Unicode input characters whose
> on-the-wire representation changes incompatibly due to character
mapping
> changes.

Will someone wake me up from this nightmare?

Suppose I decided that we should swap ASCII a and b, also c and d.  I
know the existing mapping has served us well, and it is used in many
existing files, but it really gets boring to stick to the same old
mapping.  Perhaps that sounds a little "drbzy"? 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Black_David@emc.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:41 PM
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
Cc: Black, David
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] work items to complete rfc3530bis (what are they?)

Nico,

> IDNAbis doesn't radically change IDNA, at least not in ways that
matter
> to NFSv4.  There's still A-labels and U-labels (new terminology) and
> IDN-aware and IDN-unaware domainname slots, and we still need to
decide
> whether NFSv4 domainname slots are IDN-aware or not.

Unfortunately the IDNAbis mappings draft is Dead, and that's a source of
incompatibilities if IDNs are currently being used with NFSv4.  One
potential problem area is that IDNAbis has no notion of case
folding/conversion (e.g., to lower case).  It's also the situation that
at least for stringprep, there are four Unicode input characters whose
on-the-wire representation changes incompatibly due to character mapping
changes.

> The Newprep BoF isn't relevant to the IDNAbis work, but it is
> potentially relevant to any protocol that uses stringprep profiles for
> anything other than a domainname slot (that includes NFSv4).

I would suggest that *if* NFSv4 cares about Unicode issues, *then*
it(we) should join the newprep effort.  Any decision about whether to
adopt the stringprep-bis approach that is likely to emerge from newprep
can be deferred until that result is better understood.  The alternative
of NFSv4 tackling Unicode issues on its own is unappealing, IMHO ... and
I would hazard a guess that the responsible ADs will use even more
negative language on this topic if asked ;-).

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:51 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: spencer.shepler@gmail.com; bfields@fieldses.org;
Thomas.Haynes@sun.com; nfsv4@ietf.org;
> trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] work items to complete rfc3530bis (what are
they?)
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:56:59PM -0400, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> > > Search the RFC DB for "IDN" and "IDNA" and "Internationalized
Domain
> > Names".
> >
> > It gets worse ...  Anyone who believes they understand how Unicode
works
> > in IDN needs to go look @ the proceedings of the newprep BOF in
Anaheim.
> > There are IDN changes coming (approved Internet-Drafts that are not
yet
> > published as RFCs).
> 
> All of these IDNAbis I-Ds are on the RFC-Editor queue right now:
> 
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-18
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-17
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-07
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-05
>  - draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-09
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/.../
> 
> The Newprep BoF isn't relevant to the IDNAbis work, but it is
> potentially relevant to any protocol that uses stringprep profiles for
> anything other than a domainname slot (that includes NFSv4).
> 
> IDNAbis doesn't radically change IDNA, at least not in ways that
matter
> to NFSv4.  There's still A-labels and U-labels (new terminology) and
> IDN-aware and IDN-unaware domainname slots, and we still need to
decide
> whether NFSv4 domainname slots are IDN-aware or not.
> 
> Nico
> --

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4