Re: [precis] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 05 July 2017 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0911E126B72; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=O5EyioZ3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=K8oihZfZ
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 igwbPYiyl1Ev; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04790127201; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680372072C; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Jul 2017 18:41:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Oju/DLdQFvq2E20BYn MTtSL9xynFu0h5GG6rJ9LTF04=; b=O5EyioZ3q0nca+/fcp9nase/wV0sehrNg5 Pvgwf8JrxzjJaWbUPMnsXcHRDX+udqNUzyqDE0atMFRCQd9z9PShGsN1m8JAotjH PvbsSMGiNgfkEErGA6ZZYE7/w7G+GjMKrp9hWDkw1E6FnpS2zEKTlHjew/uheKtA CjC86iXr5Y4tMhA7nxBVcuEtHZBwDgPisOMp5ZkV6EL+hckpwY8CI7CKm5aGwts9 6P+G1NZXx8baH9Tc3aNtZUZH9mIF0zU1H5pPI3qzWSOK2mKtfjnA4uZ+FKZXMAhQ UcAhBlMw0f4tPSC5i1ydVg7fg40BR8gJo3AZvNiXBexjYnYchpsg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=Oju/DLdQFvq2E20BYnMTtSL9xynFu0h5GG6rJ9LTF04=; b=K8oihZfZ uVISaXOrMPYSQiTfFppjfJgP+T09hqLYQAfgng74seK5jFdmCvPosej+MlAB7qR/ pV1DnUqVUx4I3gFzC2lccduqnIV5GE43803oYtfHiex4j1LiQIkwb3/w4scJQznQ 9VdhkYFv75KA42qHKmILi7sFZQ9T4XVIvRXxJn5I4/Pj94VHYe7DV+zEitYz2lyV wjIFEY5IMOjJyWBQGKFlSpSvxsnmLW1BIYOd8iW16OVLwljCj7xY2QQH5NaEVFY8 KYMp5smxLrb7e5MQ2OVGVDdZpJCZzbvTXQe+edj1x/YGx7NNsPvaH3n6BBkAU/m3 a9mxSJdB32zqTw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EWtdWVOAUfUQN-pYqtqzEkuZnz1NZabkPDke5ufyZrpAv_cH_rhsIw>
X-Sasl-enc: N09Tz+pdw0e9aZH5rIl5WWtzg2Ny8pQPJO9JsXGY2h7y 1499294481
Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B1F06240AF; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 18:41:20 -0400 (EDT)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <149929280791.22663.592778419584772415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-precis-7700bis@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, precis-chairs@ietf.org
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <1ad40fa7-6696-7fab-b753-c4913ca445e3@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:41:19 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149929280791.22663.592778419584772415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/KDAWlbZnvm35PzmJsUpUpE9M3tc>
Subject: Re: [precis] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:41:24 -0000

On 7/5/17 4:13 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-08: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7700bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I like the clear explanation of some of the design choices in here (e.g., the
> rationale for using NFKC).
> 
> There are two places that I think a slight bit of additional text might be
> useful:
> 
> 1. When talking about processing "each string" in section 2.4, it's probably
> worth noting that implementations should be careful not to assume that any
> information received from a wire protocol has necessarily had any of the rules
> in this document applied to it (as this might allow intentionally noncompliant
> clients to slip certain kinds of shenanigans past their checks); and

draft-ietf-precis-7564bis contains the following sentence:

   When an application applies a profile of a PRECIS string class, it
   transforms an input string (which might or might not be conforming)
   into an output string that definitively conforms to the profile.

It strikes me that something similar would be useful here, especially
the concepts of "input string" and "output string".

> 2. Where the final paragraph of section 4 indicates that the operations in this
> document are not necessarily idempotent, it is probably worth being more
> explicit that they should be applied repeatedly until the output string is
> stable; or, if the string does not stabilize after a reasonable number of
> iterations (is this possible?), that it should be rejected as invalid.

Thanks for the suggestion; although we might think that's implicit in
the notion of non-idempotence, it's much better to make the
ramifications and handling explicit. I'll add this text in the post-IESG
version.

Peter