[nfsv4] Follow-up re draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization-00
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 18:55 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.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 7711712087E for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:55:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TmAeIkrre2z5 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32DB4120995 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id f8so9298961edv.2 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:55:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r0q4yr5SX3XNYLNbBKCY4s9yj85jYNBeE/LWT1lXVjc=; b=GCC8BK3OajIe5IixnLTj6wiUL6QqR1mSFd41KycCOySnXVEXM8ywbJKsodq3T3B7ED MWhVScWPpwGh24gtiULVKDZUIyCJEkxNHFkhZ3VfFyc4slShBIzoGU0CMXY77KnZ0bsc vNNfqUwlCi4muyfjs2Uk4bILazVY6gQRJn5BjTBDG5/jkW2Krv64j9VkYhiF+MBQKbNK H2mm0jKqHkb/KJla3ZPbzD746FPghGW3ixRzbNYnsvK5zdFU8qxVO+wSrZKaU0sofYBc 1ht0rulTYN0IOjI6phjFqPCoYkgL+UCqj5yVP6lHx3sbWwUc8S8oIQPvdvkh22RIFWQ7 Y9ng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r0q4yr5SX3XNYLNbBKCY4s9yj85jYNBeE/LWT1lXVjc=; b=aNpTX/Jqap1HSSgQU6dRS3nmu1ocd6Ad07j6zWFmAWUx9kgFJyNDnsb5/LS6TzV50T zMmDDMbR5kOahZYbxRI2xWo8M/WbnFjzegKGv/EpWpoE0r3lxF8MEwzvFD88anoz8bMy Tkg80jNYVKbZCqsiphHPbzlsu+BDBpOCM8fWzd9uVR0y4B/K1jyNW4/VZzd79460LVqj LQGRmGOoynB5rcHoN1okJ9qMZQAcGO8XcB42g0fSXyPe1B29gg3DBmyJhyE3vB5jCZ5y NExeK1q1VvCJexfdi8yMt/3k/oVwrYJX4XYQ2qdxmxIbUOQOWW+NV5RQE3/whSAE0zxW QJwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZT0Y1pXWze4Y9sWhUqM1OtSr3GbmWEzrloc1W1eUTgPXbMNPE X8le741+7cLXONNIoEXlmO38JNu4q9Z1SeHt5c6afA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3/XDcrgTTo8pkgcGRuOMjYZ91na4VoKYYozV1ZVcVesQI8ILheKx9enVw6B7iG4EtiEoOcvUD2UH3kwispPo=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:e108:: with SMTP id h8mr17895120edl.196.1576868124128; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:55:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:55:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jfNJLtHAbZd07zzJN1QmBYUk_3bQgw_Guc87ZvjQFxcpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000657875059a273808"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/nB5VXD8E7qDtcx3Kt15eEYJ0PqQ>
Subject: [nfsv4] Follow-up re draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internationalization-00
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:55:30 -0000
I've been looking at the changes needed to avoid normatively referencing obsolete RFCs and think I have a good shot at doing so, but I need to get information about how current implementations deal with internationalized domain names. The problem is that RFC 7530 was written to conform to IDNA 2003 while any new document would need to conform to IDNA 2008, whose rules are more complicated. This.sounds daunting, but actually it isn't. The more complicated rules have resulted in the spec limiting the set of actors who must check them, or fix up non-conforming names to be conforming without adversely affecting the user, essentially avoiding the need for us to understand whether the strings we deal with are IDNA-compliant. It looks pretty simple to get to a reasonable -01 by deleting a lot of IDNA 2003 wordage. However, the potential problem is the possibility that existing implementations might have followed the treatment in Section 12.6 of RFC 7530, potentially creating interoperability issues. My guess is that nobody did that but it would help to get the input of people familiar with the implementations. Specifically what I need to know is: - Does the implementation treat any character other than 0x2c aka FULL STOP as a domain separator? Specifically I'm worried about FULLWIDTH FULL STOP, IDEOGRAPHIC FULL STOP, or HALFWIDTH IDEOGRAPHIC FULL STOP, all of which RFC 3490 (now obsolete) says "MUST" be recognized as domain separators. - Does the implementation check domain names for IDNA compliance including checks for normalization form, BIDI violations, unassigned or otherwise inappropriate (according to IDNA) code points, or length? - If it does do such checks and they fail, what does it do? Does it ever revise the domain name as Section 12.6 suggests it might/should? Also, do any servers accept the Punycode equivalent of internationalized names as section 12.6 says they SHOULD?
- [nfsv4] Follow-up re draft-dnoveck-nfsv4-internat… David Noveck