[nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 internationalization.
"Noveck, David" <david.noveck@emc.com> Wed, 07 August 2013 20:22 UTC
Return-Path: <david.noveck@emc.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BA021E8096 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p23OQowTr1Hu for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0F221F9C4A for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r77JeY8M029691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:40:36 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:40:20 -0400
Received: from mxhub32.corp.emc.com (mxhub32.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.172]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r77JeJLE020067 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:40:20 -0400
Received: from mx31a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.238]) by mxhub32.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.172]) with mapi; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:40:20 -0400
From: "Noveck, David" <david.noveck@emc.com>
To: "nfsv4 list (nfsv4@ietf.org)" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:40:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: one more try at RFC3530 internationalization.
Thread-Index: Ac6Tpc2vYYYsaq/sTkmYbQByg63uCg==
Message-ID: <5DEA8DB993B81040A21CF3CB332489F607B5AACC00@MX31A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 internationalization.
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:22:04 -0000
I've been working with Tom Haynes and David Black to come with an approach to internationalization for RFC3530bis, that meets the IESG's objections and has a good chance of being approved. The approach to be taken is basically to get an internationalization description that matches what people have implemented. I think it is pretty clear that does not match the stringprep-based approach taken in RFC3530, although we may have some issues proving that fact to the IESG, or more properly, giving Martin the information he needs to prove it to the IESG. The internationalization approach in the curent RF3530bis draft, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-26 attempted to make the stringprep stuff non-normtive nd loosen it nough tht current implentations fit withiin it. unfortunately, the IESG ididn't like it, so we need something else. The proposed approach is to base the new RFC3530bis handling of internationalization on the internationlization tretament in draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-04, the last draft for rfc3530 before it was stringprep-ized. I feel that this is simple enough that we can clearly make the case, with the implementer's help, that this is what current servers and clients do and getting RFC3530bis approved. The rest of this mail surveys the intrnationalization-related changes that are proposed to follow through on this approach. As mentioned we are starting with Chapter 11 of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3010bis-04 and making the following changes: o Added an introductory section explaining that this is description of current implementations, even though the words MUST/SHOULD/MAY/should are used to guide future implementations. o Deleted the sections containing a discussion of encoding alternatives and put in simple statement that a UTF-8 encoding of Unicode is to be used. o Added a section distinguishing how different sorts of strings are handled. o In the normalization section changed "A later revision of this specification may specify a particular normalization form" to "A subsequent minor version of the NFSv4 protocol might specify a particular normalization form." o Added in a new section derived from section 12.6 of rfc3530bis. o Added a new paragraph saying what server MAY and MAY NOT do regarding normalization. o In the error discussion replaced a "should" by "SHOULD". This is not primarily to strengthen the requirement, although that is the effect. It is mainly to make it clear that some servers will not be doing it. There are also other changes in that section to tie in with that. There are another set of changes to undo the changes to the XDR to define more precisely what the utf-8 attributes of various sorts of strings are. Basically we are leaving ascii_REQUIRED4 in and changing all instances of the new utf* types back to utf8string. This includes changes to draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-dox-x plus the following changes to draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis outside the internationalization chapter. o Deleting the definitions of these types in section 2.1. Also the uses of these types in this section. o Adjust the definition in 2.2.6 (of fs_location4). Also another occurrence of the same in 7.9) o Fixing a similar definition in 6.2.1. (of nfs4ace4). Any comments before we go ahead with a new draft based on this approach?
- [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 internationalizat… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Spencer Shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Haynes, Tom
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Myklebust, Trond
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Myklebust, Trond
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Myklebust, Trond
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Myklebust, Trond
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Myklebust, Trond
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Mike Kupfer
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Noveck, David
- Re: [nfsv4] one more try at RFC3530 international… Nico Williams