Thanks for the good review, Dan, and for the changes, Peter. I have balloted 
No-Objection.

Jari

On 28 May 2015, at 16:23, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 5/28/15 1:03 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> What is missing in my opinion are more details for the operators
>> about what tests can be made in order to avoid compatibility and
>> migration problems. The text in  draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-22 says:
>> 
>>> Because it is
>> possible that previously-valid JIDs might no longer be valid (or
>> previously-invalid JIDs might now be valid), operators of XMPP
>> services are advised to perform careful testing before migrating
>> accounts and other data.
>> 
>> What does this 'careful testing' include so that operators avoid
>> problems for the XMPP and XMPP applications users?  Can we be more
>> precise? Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis (which needs to
>> be referred here) seems to provide indications for application
>> developers to avoid incompatibilities - this is fine. What needs an
>> operator with an installed base of 'legacy' 6122  do and test?
> 
> As I just wrote to you and Benoit and Joel in a private email within a 
> parallel thread...
> 
> The "careful testing" we had in mind for XMPP involves just what is discussed 
> in Section 6.1 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis:
> 
> 1. Looking for account names that have Unicode code points with compatibility 
> equivalents (e.g., U+017F LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S and U+2163 ROMAN NUMERAL 
> FOUR) - this is the major concern.
> 
> 2. Looking for account names that have Unicode code points from the 
> PrecisIgnorableProperties (M) category defined in Section 9.13 of RFC 7564 
> (e.g., U+00AD SOFT HYPHEN) - these are less likely to have ever been allowed 
> in account names but I suppose it's possible (and they would have been 
> "mapped to nothing" in Stringprep so in practice a user would not notice the 
> difference if under PRECIS those code points are removed).
> 
> 3. Applying either the UsernameCaseMapped or UsernameCasePreserved profile to 
> all account names.
> 
> If Section 6 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis is complete, then referencing 
> that section from draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis should be sufficient - perhaps with 
> some more explanatory text as above, preferably in the saslprepbis document 
> because it would be helpful to operators of any application service that used 
> SASLprep (putting that in the XMPP document won't help operators of non-XMPP 
> services).
> 
> Peter
> 
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:04 PM To:
>>> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); General Area Review Team Cc:
>>> [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART
>>> Review for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis
>>> 
>>> Hi Dan, thanks for the review. Comments below.
>>> 
>>> On 5/27/15 7:00 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
>>>> on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>> 
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>>> 3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq-0A&d=AwID-
>>> g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvd
>>> rphpBsFA&m=HAGYK5DCyp4ZrASnAfyBHWxiG_skpr2T7P71C9h1s8I&s=xE06r
>>> -tOf3XD6VjtlB31ercDLaBN3lIdKjpqO-YALV8&e= >
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
>>> 3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=AAMFAw&c=BF
>>> pWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBs
>>> FA&m=r8UFfP-
>>> NUIqoQixcKqofblfdzNSaZvjkRfw3L7VsyHc&s=DCDmXhyc7XoNYI-
>>> SEtLco1iUd9vIjB8nxVWrudr4dV0&e=>>.
>>>> 
>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
>>>> comments you may receive.
>>>> 
>>>> Document:
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__art.tools.ietf.or
>>>> 
>>>> 
> g_tools_art_genart_index.cgi_t-3D965_doc-3Fselected-5Fdoc-3Ddraft-
>>> 2Die
>>>> tf-2Dxmpp-2D6122bis&d=AwID-
>>> g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXC
>>>> 
>>> JfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=HAGYK5DCyp4ZrASnAfyBHWxiG_skpr2
>>> T7P71C9
>>>> h1s8I&s=3PpWUOBw12kraQlL6gjxpgjwXG-4OvUwcK6jAOwEpd0&e=
>>>> 
>>>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>>>> 
>>>> Review Date: 5/27/15
>>>> 
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 6/3/15
>>>> 
>>>> IESG Telechat date:
>>>> 
>>>> Summary:
>>>> 
>>>> Ready with one issue which I believe is worth discussing.
>>>> 
>>>> Major issues:
>>>> 
>>>> I have a concern about backwards compatibility and migration. In
>>>> the migration between 6122 and 6122bis deployments it is possible
>>>> that previously-valid JIDs might no longer be valid or
>>>> previously-invalid JIDs become valid. Because of this the
>>>> Introduction says that operators of XMPP services are advised to
>>>> perform careful testing before migrating accounts and other
>>>> data.
>>>> 
>>>> In a dialog with Peter Saint-Andre (document author) I asked if
>>>> there are any recommendations that could be made to the
>>>> application designers and operators respectively to ease the
>>>> migration?
>>>> 
>>>> His answer pointed to section 6 (actually I think that 6.1
>>>> applies) in in draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis. I believe that a
>>>> pointer to that section in a 'migration / backwards
>>>> compatibility' section would be useful for the application
>>>> designers. What about the operators, however? Can more details
>>>> about what operator should test to ensure compatible migration of
>>>> users and applications be provided  beyond what is mentioned in
>>>> the introduction?
>>> 
>>> We tried to make Section 6 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis focused
>>> on the needs of operators, not application designers. (I happen to
>>> be the operator of a relatively large instant messaging service
>>> that will need to do some testing and possibly some data munging
>>> when we migrate our account data from Stringprep to PRECIS, so I
>>> wrote that text with my operator hat on.) If the text in
>>> draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis is not complete enough, then we need
>>> to figure that out now because it's on the IESG telechat tomorrow.
>>> I do think that's the right place to discuss the matter, because
>>> draft-ietf-xmpp- 6122bis merely uses the UsernameCaseMapped profile
>>> defined in that document.
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> -- Peter Saint-Andre
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>> 3A__andyet.com_&d=AwID-
>>> g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvd
>>> rphpBsFA&m=HAGYK5DCyp4ZrASnAfyBHWxiG_skpr2T7P71C9h1s8I&s=ZrGi4
>>> ShVndAjMY4s7wYilRtegOfs8l0lX-OPtejBQS8&e=
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to