Bernard Aboba wrote: > [BA] I agree. I don't know of any EAP peers that encode the NAI this way > (although, based on Stefan's tests, they may not use UTF-8 either).
I think the correct term is "memcpy". > [BA] Interesting. NAIs and e-mail addresses are similar; ... Often the same. Leveraging EAI would be beneficial. > Since both EAP Identity and RADIUS User-Name are 8-bit clean, the > same logic (and probably, much of the ABNF) would seem to apply here. I would like very much to know if anyone thinks that they *cannot* be applied here. > [BA] I'm trying to understand why the ASCII limitation exists in the first > place. > Presumably there are security protocols out there that utilize UTF-8 encoded > usernames > or NAIs (perhaps after some normalization procedure), right? Or, it was easier to say "ASCII", and to avoid any unknowns that might occur of 8-bit data is used. Given Stefan's test of MS-CHAP && ISO-8895-15 encodings, I think the ASCII limitation in the spec is not matched by any similar limitations in the code. >> Potentially anywhere a user identifier is used. User-Name, CUI, and >> other protocols such as Kerberos. > > RFC 4372 (CUI) Section 2.2 doesn't say anything at all about > internationalization: The CUI is often created as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". i.e. based off of the User-Name. So it's worth double-checking the effects of changing User-Name on all down-stream uses. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
