RE: Last Call summary for draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

At 10:32 AM -0400 4/13/06, Russ Housley wrote:
>I suggest the following.  I think it adds the concept of "similar looking."
>
>   When strings are mapped from internal representations to visual representations,
>   sometimes two different strings will have the same or similar visual representations.
>   This can happen for many different reasons, including use of similar glyphs and
>   multiple items being combined into a single glyph. 

"Multiple items being combined into a single glyph" sounds like you mean
"the use of composed characters" (e + ' equaling

 has a raft of different instances,
each with their own tricky bits).  If that is what you mean, I'd suggest
using that phrasing, as




>As a result of this situation,
>   people doing visual comparisons between two different names may think they are
>   the same when in fact they are not.  Also, people may mistake one string for
>   another.  Issuers of certificates and relying parties both need to be aware of
>   this situation.
>
>This does not impose any untestable requirements.  Any concerns with this text?
>
>Russ
>
>
>At 07:36 AM 4/13/2006, Santosh Chokhani wrote:
>>When strings are mapped from internal representations to visual
>>representations, sometimes two different strings will have
>>the same visual representations.  This can happen due to similar glyphs,
>>multiple items being combined into a single glyph among other reasons.
>>When
>>this happens people doing visual comparisons between two different names
>>may
>>think they are the same when in fact they are not.  Also, people may
>>mistake one string for another.  Issuers of certificates and relying
>>parties both need to be aware of these facts.