Re: [precis] I-D ACTION:draft-nemoto-precis-framework-implement-report-00.txt

[Takahiro Nemoto <[e-mail]>]

Thank you so much for the reviews.

On 2012/07/17, at 6:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 7/5/12 10:14 PM, Takahiro Nemoto wrote:
> > Dear Peter-san and all,
> > 
> > Thank you for introducing our I-D. Please read and give your
> > comments/suggestions.
> 
> First, thank you for working on this document.
> 
> I agree with you that "the file describing derived property value
> table for precis should be generated". It is also good to know that
> you have worked on an implementation that generates the tables. I am
> also working on an implementation (unfortunately I did not have time
> to finish it before IETF 84, but I plan to do that in August) and
> would like to "compare notes" with you. I recognize that the tables in
> draft-ietf-precis-framework are quite likely incorrect in some places
> since I created them by hand, so I will work to make more accurate
> tables next month.

I'd like to compare notes with you too, and I'm happy if I can co-work with you :-)

> 
> You mention the need to do string validity checking, for example to
> make sure that string length is non-zero. Do you think that is a
> PRECIS check or a check at the application layer? I've always thought
> this is something that the application would do, not PRECIS.

I think that maybe some checks are included at PRECIS.
I think if PRECIS does not define any checks in the protocol 
and an application developer forget to implement some checks 
in an application, this application may cause vulnerabilities.

> 
> As to special mappings like "Map to SPACE" and "Map to Nothing", it
> seems to me that in a post-stringprep system we can handle those by
> more carefully defining the string classes.

Sorry, but I don't get it. What does a post-stringprep system mean?

> 
> You make a good point about the order of processing (normalization
> then validity in IDNA2008 vs. validity then normalization in
> SASLprep-bis). It does seem preferable to have a consistent order.
> Let's make sure we have discussion about this at the meeting two weeks
> from now.

Yes, we do. I think that It is preferable to have a consistent order.
Different results from the order of processing can now only be found in Hangul.
If you know any examples, please let us know.

> 
> Peter
> 
> - -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> 
> 


Nemo

--
Takahiro Nemoto
[e-mail]