On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:41:47AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
[...]
For whatever it is worth, I agree with this analysis. I'm not
sure that RFC 5198 is an adequate substitute for SASLprep, but
it is far better than unrestricted UTF-8 (which, IMO, we should
no longer be recommending in any protocol that requires
comparison of strings).
[OT for the draft-ietf-sasl-scram thread, but possibly of interest to the
IETF list.]
NFSv4 left normalization form unspecified for filenames. We ended up
implementing normalization-insensitive and normalization-preserving
behavior in ZFS in Solaris. The normalization-insensitive part and
high-performance normalization code was the relatively easy part. The
normalization-preserving part was non-trivial, or would be/have been for
filesystems that don't/didn't already hash directory contents (as ZFS
did). (ZFS uses locally normalized file names as input to the hash
function, but stores application-/remote fs protocol-provided file names
unnormalized in the directory hash entries.)
The lesson is, IMO, that in the general case I think we can get way with
not specifying normalization forms for _query_ strings, but not for
_storage_ strings.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf