On 10 Mar 2015, at 19:51, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- 3.3, implementation note:
Are there any practical consequences for the implementor? Are there
potential conflicts where the XMPP implementation correctly forms a
Localpart, but it contains an identifier that is interpreted
incorrectly by some SASL mechanism?
Re-using the UsernameCaseMapped profile from
draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis should help in this regard. However, as
noted, some SASL mechanisms might not be upgraded quickly and thus
would still use SASLprep (RFC 4013). The differences are explained a
bit more in Appendix A of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis - as I see
it, the only semi-major issue is that certain characters that were
"mapped to nothing" in RFC 4013 are simply disallowed by the
UsernameCaseMapped profile that we re-use in 6122bis.
So an identifier created with UsernameCaseMapped should be fine, but
an identifier created somewhere else in sasl might not be legal? That
_seems_ unlikely to be a problem...
I realized shortly after sending this that that made no sense. It seems
more likely that you would run into a previously created identifier that
followed older rules--but you already discuss that in the intro.
Even so, it still might not hurt to mention the appendix.
It might not hurt to mention the saslprepbis appendix in the note.
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
