Kurt:
Okay. I think I get your point. I'll try one more time, but if that
does not satisfy you, then you will have to respond with proposed
text. I'm trying to address Pasi's comment too.
Based on updates from a previous comment, the document will say:
The domain_name parameter, when specified, SHALL contain a domain
name in the "preferred name syntax," as specified by RFC 1123.
I think that this resolves your concern about the encoding of domain_name.
I propose the following text to handle the same concern for
user_principal_name:
The user_principal_name parameter, when specified, SHALL contain
an Unicode UPN, encoded as a UTF-8 string.
Now, for the rest:
This document does not specify how the server stores the
user_principal_name, or how exactly it might be used to locate a
certificate. For instance, it might be appropriate to do a
case-insensitive lookup. It is RECOMMENDED that the server
processes the user_principal_name with a stringprep profile
[STRINGPREP] appropriate for the identity in question, such as
Nameprep [NAMEPREP] for the portion domain portion of UPN
and SASLprep [SASLPREP] for the user portion of the UPN.
Russ
At 10:04 AM 3/22/2006, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
At 12:03 AM 3/22/2006, Russ Housley wrote:
>Kurt:
>
>Would text like the following (which is largely stolen from
draft-ietf-tls-psk) solve your concern:
No. While the language does address part of the question:
how/where canonical of the user_principal_name
string is performed?
it neither addresses this question:
how/where canonical of the domain_name
string is performed?
nor address the question:
what character set/encoding is used on the wire in
transferring these character strings?
I also suspect that the selection of SASLprep here, which
is intended to be used for simple usernames and passwords,
is appropriate for all of the user_principal_name string.
My understanding is that the user_principal_name is
composed of both a simple username part and a domain
part. Components of the latter likely should instead
be prepared by nameprep (if allowed to carry IDNA
components). Also, as the user part of the
user_principal_name is, it appears from casual
examination of various MS documents, to be
case insensitive, SASLprep should not be used.
Kurt
>This document does not specify how the server stores the
user_principal_name, or how exactly it might be used to locate a
certificate. For instance, it might be appropriate to do a
case-insensitive lookup. It is RECOMMENDED that the server
processes the user_principal_name with a stringprep profile
[STRINGPREP] appropriate for the identity in question, such as
SASLprep [SASLPREP].
>
>Russ
>
>At 12:19 PM 3/21/2006, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>At 11:06 AM 3/21/2006, Stefan Santesson wrote:
>>>Kurt,
>>>
>>>I've spent some time over this topic with Russ Housley and Paul Hoffman
>>>here at the IETF and the conclusion is that we should not specify any
>>>granular encoding or matching rules for the hints.
>>>
>>>The client's use of the name hint requires the client to know its
>>>account name and as such the client will also know in what form the
>>>server needs it.
>>
>>What about character set/encoding?
>>
>>- Kurt
>>
>>>The client should never send the name hint in a way where the server
>>>needs to process it in order to map the hint to an account.
>>>
>>>There reference will be fixed (or removed).
>>>
>>>Stefan Santesson
>>>Program Manager, Standards Liaison
>>>Windows Security
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt(_at_)OpenLDAP(_dot_)org]
>>>> Sent: den 7 mars 2006 18:35
>>>> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>>>> Subject: draft-santesson-tls-ume Last Call comment
>>>>
>>>> I note the IETF last call was issued for rev. 2. That
>>>> revision no longer exists, hence I reviewed rev. 3.
>>>>
>>>> This document specification of a "User Principal Name",
>>>> I believe, is inadequate.
>>>>
>>>> The I-D indicates that a user_principal_name is a sequence of
>>>> 0 to 65535 bytes in the form of user(_at_)domain(_dot_) However,
>>>> such a form implies the value is a character string,
>>>> but there is no mention of what character set/encoding
>>>> is used here. I would think interoperability
>>>> requires both client and server to have a common
>>>> understand of what character set/encoding is to
>>>> be used. Additionally, there is no discussion
>>>> of UPN matching. Are byte sequences that differ
>>>> only due to use of different Unicode normalizations
>>>> to be consider the same or differ? Are values
>>>> case sensitive or not? etc..
>>>>
>>>> The domain_name field suffers not only from the
>>>> above problem, but is flawed due to use of the
>>>> outdated "preferred name syntax" of RFC 1034.
>>>> This syntax doesn't allow domains such as
>>>> 123.example. The text should likely reference
>>>> the RFC 1123 which updates the "preferred name
>>>> syntax" for naming hosts.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, no mention of how International
>>>> domain names (IDNs) are to be handled.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend ABNF be used to detail the syntax
>>>> of each of these fields and that the I-D detail
>>>> how values of these fields are to be compared.
>>>> Additionally, the I-D should discuss how IDNs
>>>> are to be handled.
>>>> -- Kurt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ietf mailing list
>>Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf