Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <> Thu, 20 July 2017 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED81129ACD for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=W9e3w5wi; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=r+wt+KzR
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLcI2wLiYcFW for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6537E126E64 for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D546C20852; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:40:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= 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=maNNya0c0pMg9qGZTY 3EjP4ODxANazat4QUWbuL6kkM=; b=W9e3w5wibo/h3qheHZrNeqp3HhqTJ+1b/l +q4WdHBATlJdEmE2vwjUYS9rliS4FQ5jfVhXxzYuQZGsnP3z5QIyh7lwRx0drfm2 2iPcO8WH00vNM7BLwuKohMrYWLQiwhaezl8kOver4aIB7/ENleaTmLURlHU2tUNg KehyN42Ko73D6VyiiOcIp7Sq93T6icWfTouCWw7g835+Iqvimod9B9DnnDgdS1OK 2HYW7oKGBdy1Sjbw8LJRg7K/f5zUXsFooyL+AY6O9+9mDnVImjnXhGCwYW2/K2m3 yA8R2BIPkK/27XAxZnyKgaMWp+Tjn03z5azMsdiH07BwFqHgflrw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=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=maNNya0c0pMg9qGZTY3EjP4ODxANazat4QUWbuL6kkM=; b=r+wt+KzR WokAHztpYUjnbGPJKPHDCm3otO0cyrJRYdV8yLDE8kFxE9lWamHBqFcnci3cX2L3 iFOLQ/e1+Qq1M+6jMT8mQ/r8nilG34upWLt828FzlfYOb2nnLim2kw6z9bPM2YWy b27B3VCMABlm1c3l+IMPXV5oNrqm6M8iezo3Bz+ic5IiJ9nzDznB6x1hs2wiP65I swVp4SHhqWP7XprnWTeWI0Cj3N1x5Id5V4ZnmesIxHGCHVpF3XM9qQO3y6JpZnCR LL7o6VwwK5ExLHT1L4/NmLJWPBJti2aabxg8NB7CT8SAAMX/TyeQ1Dy8FAkJPCEn DGDA9eccc394Lg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:HApwWXDuha4lReBcx1bVjHWol-Da_TkqBsOwVVpY2qPd_HPqfu9Zbg>
X-Sasl-enc: mRZZO/38l3wOZMLABc65gjso7scPixIfSl2MLBjkEeJD 1500514844
Received: from aither.local (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5600D2418A; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
References: <>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:40:42 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:40:47 -0000

On 7/16/17 5:20 PM, wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings of the IETF.
>         Title           : PRECIS Framework: Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols
>         Authors         : Peter Saint-Andre
>                           Marc Blanchet
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt

Our area director pointed out to me offlist that the definition of
"reasonable" is vague in the following text:

   Because of the order of operations specified here, applying the rules
   for any given PRECIS profile is not necessarily an idempotent
   procedure (e.g., under certain circumstances, such as when Unicode
   normalization form KC is used, performing Unicode normalization after
   case mapping can still yield uppercase characters for certain code
   points).  Therefore, an implementation SHOULD apply the rules
   repeatedly until the output string is stable; if the output string
   does not stabilize within a reasonable number of iterations, the
   implementation SHOULD terminate application of the rules and reject
   the input string as invalid.

What do implementers think is a "reasonable number of iterations"? My
sense is that we're talking about at most 4 or 5, and usually 2 or 3.