On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Thinking about this further, I now lean against making this change in > the PRECIS processing rules, for several reasons:
Sorry for dragging this back up again, but I ran into this for the first time "in the real world" recently (a comprison using the nickname profile that was unexpectedly failing in a non-obvious way) and wanted to weigh in: With the nickname profile in particular this might not be that big of a deal, but other as-yet-unthought-of future security focused profiles may need to use NFKC for some handwavey reason (although if they are security focused they probaly shouldn't be using NFKC, but let's assume that they have too), but may need to be idempotent for security reasons. It is currently not possible (as far as I can tell) to create a profile that both uses NFKC, and is idempotent. I know we don't want to encourage profile proliferation, but I suspect at some point someone will have a valid reason to write a new profile, so future proofing would be nice. Maybe it would be beneficial to add a new step to the PRECIS framework (with the understanding that current profiles just don't have this step, making them backwards compatible), a "finalization mapping" step: this could be used to eg. run the additional mapping rule a second time, run normalization again, or just perform specific known mappings that fix edge cases. I'm not sure how generally useful it would be, or if it would just be a huge change for relatively little benefit (or maybe it would even be an actively bad thing somehow?); just a thought. Best, Sam _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
