Looks good to me. -Bill
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/23/17 1:46 PM, William Fisher wrote: >> I agree with the "implementation note" strategy. In all my testing, >> only the "Nickname" profile can fail to be idempotent for some inputs. >> I have not found any inputs that fail the idempotent test using the >> Username or OpaqueString profiles. I believe "Nickname" has problems >> because it uses NFKC. I would add an implementation note/warning to >> the Nickname profile. > > Hi Bill, thanks for your feedback. I propose the following text. > > 1. At the end of Section 7 ("Order of Operations") of 7564bis, add this > note: > > Because of the order of operations specified here, applying the rules > for any given PRECIS profile is not necessarily an idempotent > procedure (e.g., under certain circumstances, such as when Unicode > normalization form KC is used, performing Unicode normalization after > case mapping can still yield uppercase characters for certain code > points); therefore, implementations might need to apply the rules > more than once to an internationalized string. > > 2. At the end of Section 4 ("Use in Application Protocols") of 7700bis, > add this note: > > Implementation experience has shown that applying the rules for the > Nickname profile is not an idempotent procedure for all code points. > Therefore, implementations might need to apply the rules more than > once to a nickname string. > > 3. I see no harm in also adding the following note to the end of Section > 5 ("Use in Application Protocols") of 7613bis: > > Applying the rules for any given PRECIS profile is not necessarily > an idempotent procedure for all code points. Therefore, > implementations might need to apply the rules more than once to an > internationalized string. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
