Re: [precis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7700 (4570)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 12/23/15 8:09 AM, Sam Whited wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After submitting this yesterday I had a discussion with Christian
> Schudt about it and he pointed out that you probably want to be able
> to display the text output by the enforce operation, and therefore
> this was most likely a deliberate change. With that in mind, I'd like
> to ammend my suggestions somewhat:
>
> The directionality rule should still be removed from the list of rules
> in section 2.3 as well as the list in section 2.4 (there is no
> directionality rule, so having it in the order of operations is just
> confusing), and section 2 item 3 should be updated to clarify that
> Unicode default case folding only needs to be applied during the
> comparison step (right now it states that it "MUST be applied" which
> is ambiguous since it doesn't list what step (or steps) need to apply
> it and makes it seem like it should be part of the enforcement step).

Agreed. I plan to add the following text:

Section 2.1

OLD

    3.  Case Mapping Rule: Apply Unicode Default Case Folding, as defined
        in the Unicode Standard [Unicode] (at the time of this writing,
        the algorithm is specified in Chapter 3 of [Unicode7.0]).  In
        applications that prohibit conflicting nicknames, this rule helps
        to reduce the possibility of confusion by ensuring that nicknames
        differing only by case (e.g., "stpeter" vs. "StPeter") would not
        be presented to a human user at the same time.

NEW

    3.  Case Mapping Rule: Apply Unicode Default Case Folding, as defined
        in the Unicode Standard [Unicode] (at the time of this writing,
        the algorithm is specified in Chapter 3 of [Unicode7.0]).  In
        applications that prohibit conflicting nicknames, this rule helps
        to reduce the possibility of confusion by ensuring that nicknames
        differing only by case (e.g., "stpeter" vs. "StPeter") would not
        be presented to a human user at the same time.  (As explained
        below, this is typically appropriate only for comparison, not for
        enforcement.)

Section 2.3

OLD

    1.  Additional Mapping Rule
    2.  Normalization Rule
    3.  Normalization Rule

NEW

    1.  Additional Mapping Rule
    2.  Normalization Rule

    Note: An entity SHOULD NOT apply the Case Mapping Rule during
    enforcement, because typically it is appropriate only during
    comparison.

Peter


> Best,
> Sam
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:58 PM, RFC Errata System
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7700,
>> "Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7700&eid=4570
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Sam Whited <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 2.3
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> An entity that performs enforcement according to this profile MUST
>>    prepare a string as described in Section 2.2 and MUST also apply the
>>    following rules specified in Section 2.1 in the order shown:
>>
>>    1.  Additional Mapping Rule
>>    2.  Normalization Rule
>>    3.  Directionality Rule
>>
>>    After all of the foregoing rules have been enforced, the entity MUST
>>    ensure that the nickname is not zero bytes in length (this is done
>>    after enforcing the rules to prevent applications from mistakenly
>>    omitting a nickname entirely, because when internationalized
>>    characters are accepted, a non-empty sequence of characters can
>>    result in a zero-length nickname after canonicalization).
>>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> An entity that performs enforcement according to this profile MUST
>>    prepare a string as described in Section 2.2 and MUST also apply the
>>    following rules specified in Section 2.1 in the order shown:
>>
>>    1.  Additional Mapping Rule
>>    2.  Case Mapping Rule
>>    3.  Normalization Rule
>>
>>    After all of the foregoing rules have been enforced, the entity MUST
>>    ensure that the nickname is not zero bytes in length (this is done
>>    after enforcing the rules to prevent applications from mistakenly
>>    omitting a nickname entirely, because when internationalized
>>    characters are accepted, a non-empty sequence of characters can
>>    result in a zero-length nickname after canonicalization).
>>
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> There is no directionality rule to be applied during enforcement as the directionality rule is part of NFKC, the case mapping rule (as mentioned in section 2.1).
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7700 (draft-ietf-precis-nickname-19)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Nicknames
>> Publication Date    : December 2015
>> Author(s)           : P. Saint-Andre
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings
>> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>
>
>