ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: My IESG Eval for draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19 (Was: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call)

2015-02-04 10:34:06
+1
Given what I believe has been referred to recently as "the
kerfluffle", it is not clear whether the advice about
normalization in 3986 is really adequate either, but it appears
to me that is close enough for this document and, as you
suggest, clearly better than making a new reference to 3987.

    john


--On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 09:50 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:

Normally I would just put this in my ballot, but since a
change was made due to a Last Call comment that was discussed
here (a discussion I missed at the time) I want to comment on
this here to make sure there is consensus for either the
change you made, or for what I will propose:

On 12/19/14 6:06 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
One thing I just noticed is that you allow Unicode.  You
might want to reference RFC3987 (IRIs), for, e.g., advice as
to normalization.
   

This seems like an exceedingly bad idea to me, for a number of
reasons:

1. The use of IRIs as protocol elements is recipe for
disaster. I think we came to the conclusion long ago that if
you are using something as a protocol element, it had better
be a URI, and you had better percent-encode anything that was
non-US-ASCII.

2. Normalization is discussed quite reasonably in 3986; 3987
is unlikely to add anything useful.

3. The 3987 is currently in a state of limbo. We're waiting to
see what W3C ends up recommending for HTML5, and the IETF is
likely to end up referencing that in the long run and not 3987.

Unless folks want to express a strong reason for this
particular document to reference 3987, I really think you
should remove any reference to it.

pr




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>