On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Gutmann
<pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)auckland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz> wrote:
I would urge, as I think I did before, some fairly strong warnings that, at
least until the issues are clarified in PKCS#11 itself, one should be very
certain one knows what one is doing (and what the consequences of one's
choices will be) if one decides to move beyond the safety and general
understanding of the ASCII/ ISO 646/ IA5 letter and digit repertoire.
I'd go even further than that and just mandate MUST ASCII. This is a simple
means of pointing to a PKCS #11 object, not a universal means of
communicating
abstract concepts in any language known to man.
Correct, but that can be done by the OASIS PKCS #11 group, not by
IETF. Here the draft proposes a way to expose PKCS #11 objects/tokens
as a URI. It cannot mandate the format of the PKCS #11 attributes a
module will contain.
hi Nikos, I agree with Nico that RECOMMENDed for ASCII use in
labels would be fine. I'm gonna leave the new text for the new draft
18 discussing issues with the PKCS#11 spec not being clear about how
to normalize UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, and what is our
recommendation with regard to that. I will revisit it today and send
a new version draft for draft 18 here. J.
--
Jan Pechanec <jan(_dot_)pechanec(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com>