Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis
<david.black@emc.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED3D3A6AE5 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.254, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 6yKeyYaP8hxM for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E310A3A6A84 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o8MIkCQ6017259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:46:13 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:46:09 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com [128.221.166.229]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o8MIjipV025215; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:45:44 -0400
Received: from mxhub06.corp.emc.com ([128.221.46.114]) by corpussmtp5.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:45:43 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.11]) by mxhub06.corp.emc.com ([128.221.46.114]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:45:43 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: bfields@fieldses.org
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:45:37 -0400
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis
Thread-Index: ActagTa5sEQpCR5SSeeeDYaP6Izm0wABRDxQ
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E03D1AEDE1C@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D8002664E38@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E03D1AEDD3D@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <20100922180601.GA25382@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100922180601.GA25382@fieldses.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-puzzleid: {7BEF52B7-B5D2-4D7E-A671-A1CA0434E702}
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AyNJ BUJb DOVW FlWC Fmpo GhoB KObA Mo6F M65y NvUt PZv7 SzqU Twpf T8iH Xugb YgPs; 2; YgBmAGkAZQBsAGQAcwBAAGYAaQBlAGwAZABzAGUAcwAuAG8AcgBnADsAbgBmAHMAdgA0AEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnAA==; Sosha1_v1; 7; {7BEF52B7-B5D2-4D7E-A671-A1CA0434E702}; ZABhAHYAaQBkAC4AYgBsAGEAYwBrAEAAZQBtAGMALgBjAG8AbQA=; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:45:37 GMT; UgBFADoAIABbAG4AZgBzAHYANABdACAARwBvAGkAbgBnACAAZgBvAHIAdwBhAHIAZAAgAG8AbgAgAEkAMQA4AE4AIABpAG4AIABSAEYAQwAzADUAMwAwACAAYgBpAHMA
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2010 18:45:43.0916 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CCBAAC0:01CB5A86]
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 22 Sep 2010 18:46:08 -0000
> I'll freely admit I haven't been following this discussion, so apologies > if I'm misunderstanding what you ask. No apology needed - that's definitely an example of "running code" ... Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:bfields@fieldses.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:06 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: Noveck, David; nfsv4@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:48:44AM -0400, david.black@emc.com wrote: > > Dave, > > > > I reviewed the i18n material in -04 (Section 12). it looks fairly > > good, but the details are now beyond my level of i18n expertise. I > > suggest that we get a real i18n expert to review this section in the > > next version of the draft - I have a couple of candidate reviewers in > > mind. Many thanks for the extensive effort that has clearly gone into > > this. > > > > I have one basic disagreement that should not come as a surprise ;-) > > ... > > > > My current view of A-labels vs. U-labels is that I'm going to (try to) > > insist on no A-labels, *unless* there is important "running code" that > > depends on A-labels on the wire and that needs to be grandfathered. > > Last time I checked, the linux referral code would only follow a > referral if it was an A-label: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07863.html > > That may have changed. However, it wouldn't be surprising if it were > common behavior to pass the referral name directly to non-idn-aware dns > interfaces... > > > A-labels exist because the DNS infrastructure is fundamentally ASCII. > > Since NFSv4 is UTF-8 capable, A-labels on the wire are just plain > > wrong in principle, IMHO. FWIW, I don't care whether it's possible to > > get the current A-label approach blessed by the IETF's i18n gurus. > > This turns up in 12.6 as "MAY be in the form of an A-label". My > > preference is that A-labels on the wire be "MUST NOT" > > ... and therefore that a server conforming to such a "MUST NOT" would > likely fail to operate with client implementations. > > I'll freely admit I haven't been following this discussion, so apologies > if I'm misunderstanding what you ask. > > --b. > > > - if there's > > important "running code", I might settle for "SHOULD NOT" with an > > explanation of the "running code" that requires ignoring that "SHOULD > > NOT" in order to keep that "running code" happy. > > > > > > Comments: > > > > For strings that SHOULD be UTF-8, but aren't, what's the protocol requirement? I think the > requirement is 8-bit clean (e.g., MUST NOT force the most significant octet to zero, unless the > string MUST be ASCII). That should be stated as part of the string classification. > > > > The redefinition of "SHOULD" in 12.2.2 is an invitation to confusion. I suggest: > > SHOULD -> USHOULD, VSHOULD -> UVSHOULD & VMUST -> UVMUST > > plus use of capitalized SHOULD/MUST in defining these terms. > > > > The first paragraph of 12.3 does not distinguish utf8_should strings from utf8val_should strings - > the "SHOULD" requirement to return an error if the string is not UTF-8 conflicts with the statement > that utf8_should strings are not checked for UTF-8 validity - I think that error return requirement > applies only to utf8val_should strings. > > > > 12.4.2 suggests that NFSv4 supports hex-encoded text forms of IPv4 addresses. Is that correct > and/or needed? The usual textual form of IPv4 addresses is decimal encoding. > > > > 12.7.1.2: > > > > However, in any of the following situations, file names have to be > > treated as strings of characters and servers MUST return > > NFS4ERR_INVAL when file names that are not in UTF-8 format: > > > > Would "characters" -> "Unicode characters" be consistent with what was intended? If so, that > change would make the text clearer. If not, I'm confused. > > > > 12.7.1.3 uses lower-case "must" and "should". Is that deliberate vs. upper-case. In general, > double-check all uses of lower-case "must" and "should" to make sure that they are intended. > > > > 12.7.1.5.2 would be improved by examples of what clients should and/or should not do in order to > improve interoperability with servers that do not handle normalization in the fashion that the > client expects. > > > > 12.7.2 - If link text is utf8_should, servers aren't supposed to check for valid UTF8. Based on > 12.2.3, it looks like link text is utf8val_should, for which this check is appropriate. > > > > Nits: > > - Saw one instance of NFKC garbled to NKFC. > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of david.noveck@emc.com > > > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:36 PM > > > To: nfsv4@ietf.org > > > Subject: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis > > > > > > David Black (the man behind NFSv4.2 :-) has asked me to summarize the > > > situation with regard to I18N in RFC3530 and the current plan about what > > > to do about it going forward in handling it in RFC3530bis. > > > > > > ---- First some pointers: > > > > > > The description of I18N is in chapter 11 of RFC3530, > > > page 122 of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt > > > > > > The current draft replacement is in the latest draft > > > of RFC3530bis, that is, in chapter 12 (pages 160-179) > > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-04.txt. > > > This is pretty much a rewrite of chapter 12 of the > > > previous draft-03, so looking at the diff is not much help. > > > > > > ---- Background: > > > > > > The basic problem with chapter 11 of RFC3530 is that it has almost no > > > relation to what has been actually implemented. The current form of > > > chapter 11 reflects political pressures at the time of RFC approval > > > within the IETF to conform to the stringprep paradigm, and so it is > > > organized around that. But implementations started without it, and > > > never were adjusted to conform to that model, for good reasons, > > > discussed below. > > > > > > In the meantime, problems within stringprep have become manifest. Even > > > more important is the fact that for the most important string type > > > subject to I18N issues, filename components, the stringprep-style > > > approach in its totality does not match the needs of NFSv4. The issue > > > is that you can think of the server as a single thing (including the > > > server code and the file system you are talking to) in which case it > > > makes sense to define, in exquisite detail, character mapping, and > > > repertoire rules, so as to provide interoperability down to the most > > > recondite character-handling details. > > > > > > However in fact, server implementations and file-systems are separate > > > things and one cannot enforce detailed character handling rules on the > > > file-systems and if one does one limits unacceptably the file systems > > > that one can use. And if one does that in front of the file systems, we > > > interfere with another major goal of NFSv4, proper interoperability with > > > other network file systems and with local use of those file systems. If > > > the protocol imposes rules that are not imposed locally, there may be > > > valid files you can't get at over NFSv4. > > > > > > As a result, NFSv4, at least in this regard is better described as a > > > protocol to pass names from the client to the remote server file system, > > > making as few modifications as we can. In fact, this is what people > > > actually implemented and it differs in a major way from what is > > > described in chapter 11 of RFC3530. Thus the need to describe the > > > reality that clients and servers implement in RFC3530bis. > > > > > > ---- Changes: > > > > > > This is a brief summary of the changes I introduced. It is a high-level > > > summary and I may have forgotten a few things. > > > > > > Re-organize the string types. In RFC3530, these had been organized > > > about stringprep profiles, basically around whether strings > > > case-sensitive or not, or partially case-sensitive. The resulted in > > > very strange conclusions such as applying UTF-8 checking and checking > > > for characters outside Unicode 3.1 being applied to tags. > > > > > > Tags are treated opaquely with no UTF-8 checking, Unicode repertoire > > > checking, normalization-related checking. > > > > > > There is more clarity about various sorts of strings. In particular, > > > string which, for various reasons, do not require internationalization > > > handling are explicitly called out. > > > > > > Adopting IDNA handling for domains and servers and simply referencing > > > those docs for what is OK. There is the issue of U-labels vs. A-labels. > > > We allow A-labels or UTF-8 strings whether canonicalized or not. There > > > has been some discussion about changing that to U-labels only but that > > > will only be done if there is working group consensus. > > > > > > Extensive discussion of the fact that our ability to legislate character > > > handling for file systems is limited. > > > > > > Change UTF-8 requirement for filenames from MUST to SHOULD to match > > > NFSv4.1. > > > > > > Get rid of requirement that everything be within Unicode 3.1. Get rid > > > of requirements that large sets of characters within Unicode 3.1 be > > > rejected for various reasons. > > > > > > Get rid of requirement to map various characters. SHOULD NOT do > > > mappings which are problematic for stringprep (German eszett mapped to > > > 'ss', zero-length join and non-join characters mapped to nothing causing > > > issues Farsi) but MAY use other mappings in that (and by implication no > > > mappings outside it). > > > > > > New treatment of normalization. Allow normalization-sensitive servers > > > (but warn of difficulties without saying SHOULD NOT), allow > > > servers/file-systems to choose to normalize NFC or NFD (but not reject > > > filename in "wrong" normalization as was implied by RFC3530), and also > > > mention/allow for the first time > > > normalization/insensitive/normalization-preserving handling of names > > > (best choice but no SHOULD because this is big change to the file system > > > ad thus nor really spec's business). > > > > > > Discussion of how symlink text should be processed and where the > > > handling differs from file component names. > > > > > > New treatment of user/group names. Each domain establishes its own list > > > of these so there are no repertoire rules. There is a discussion about > > > why you should match these based on canonical equivalence, but there is > > > no n/i-n/p option for these because it would require fs to save 2 (or > > > sometimes many more) variants of that same user and group in the user > > > and group attributes and in ACLs. Nobody is going to do that nor > > > should they. > > > > > > I'm sure I've missed some things. If you notice them, let me know, as > > > it would be good to maintain somewhere a summary of what was done in > > > this chapter. > > > > > > ---- Discussion on call: > > > > > > The big issue discussed was whether we should wait for precis to finish > > > this up. > > > > > > David Black came to the conclusion that since precis work was not > > > proceeding very fast, we should go ahead based on the current draft plus > > > working group comments, with the potential of an additional update > > > (RFC3530tris?) when the precis work is finished and can be applied to > > > NFSv4. > > > > > > There were arguments about his use of the word "patch" and the probable > > > relative proportions of updates in RFC3530bis and its successor but no > > > fundamental disagreement on the basic approach. > > > > > > I will be working on an update to chapter 12 that will go into a new > > > draft of rfc3530-bis, targeted at the Beijing deadline. May be able to > > > get it out earlier but I hope people will have chance to look at the > > > current draft and give me their comments. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > nfsv4 mailing list > > > nfsv4@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nfsv4 mailing list > > nfsv4@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
- [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Spencer Shepler
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Trond Myklebust
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis J. Bruce Fields
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis Robert Thurlow
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis david.black