This text regarding internationalization/normalization works for me. Looking at the diff from -07 to -09, we seem in pretty good shape overall; were we going to add a note to abstract and/or introduction about "this extension allows for the use of strong passwords with EPP"? (I think Jim had proposed actual text at some point that's better than my paraphrased version here.)
-Ben On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 07:43:47AM -0800, Barry Leiba wrote: > Great; thanks, Jim. Ben, are you OK with this now? > > Barry > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:28 AM Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Barry & Ben, > > > > Thanks for the detailed discussion. I will change the "recommended" to the > > normative "RECOMMENDED" and change the PRECIS sentence to match Ben's > > proposal. The end result will be: > > > > It is RECOMMENDED that the plain text password in the <loginSec:pw> and > > <loginSec:newPw> elements use printable ASCII characters #x20 (space) - > > #x7E (~), with high entropy, such as 128 bits. If non-ASCII characters are > > supported with the plain text password, then use a standard for passwords > > with international characters; the OpaqueString PRECIS profile in [RFC8265] > > is recommended in the absence of other considerations. > > > > I'll include this change in the posting of > > draft-ietf-regext-login-security-09. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > > > JG > > > > > > > > James Gould > > Distinguished Engineer > > [email protected] > > <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> > > > > 703-948-3271 > > 12061 Bluemont Way > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> > > > > On 2/22/20, 6:15 PM, "Barry Leiba" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks, Ben; this helps a lot. > > > > Jim, are you good with Ben's suggestion or a variation of that? It's > > just a small update to what you have, and makes it clearer that if you > > need I18N, PRECIS is the weay to do it. > > > > Barry > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:08 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Barry, > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 12:12:29AM -0500, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > > Hi, all... > > > > > > > > I'm sorry if I'm not completely clear about where the discussion is, > > > > but what Jim's mail system does to the quoting is horrendous (as is > > > > the case with most HTML-based mail systems), and I can't easily > > follow > > > > the thread. > > > > > > I sympathize; I find that with some regularity I end up saving the > > > text/html component to a file and opening it in a browser in order to > > have > > > a chance of figuring out what's going on. > > > > > > > So I'm just picking up this recent bit from Ben: > > > > > > > > > I think it would probably be helpful for the responsible AD to > > chime in; my > > > > > understanding is still that the PRECIS profiles are to be used as > > part of a > > > > > protocol as opposed to part of a deployment, and that allowing for > > > > > different rules to be used in different sites is risky. I > > understand that > > > > > there's the extra context here of the potential for preexisting > > deployments > > > > > that started using non-ASCII passwords in the absence of any > > guidance from > > > > > the IETF on how to do so, and we have to consider whether what we > > do will > > > > > break them, and so hearing from someone versed in the matter who > > has > > > > > thought about this particular case would help assuage my > > concerns. One > > > > > possible route (given that, as I understand it, a lot of EPP > > deployments > > > > > involve exchange of configuration and deployment information > > between peers > > > > > out of band) would be to say that the PRECIS profile is used as a > > default > > > > > in the absence of other configuration knowledge for a given > > deployment, > > > > > though I acknowledge that this is not without flaws. > > > > > > > > I had discussed the PRECIS issue with Jim, which is what resulted > > in this text: > > > > > > > > It is recommended that the plain text password in the > > <loginSec:pw> > > > > and <loginSec:newPw> elements use printable ASCII characters #x20 > > > > (space) - #x7E (~), with high entropy, such as 128 bits. If non- > > > > ASCII characters are supported with the plain text password, > > then use > > > > a standard for passwords with international characters, such as > > the > > > > OpaqueString PRECIS profile in [RFC8265]. > > > > > > > > I think that's adequate, given that (1) we really are expecting that > > > > almost all passwords out there are ASCII, and we're recommending > > > > keeping it that way, (2) we need to allow, but discourage, non-ASCII > > > > UTF-8 passwords for the (expectedly rare) cases where they might be > > > > used, and (3) these are stored passwords that are passed around, > > > > rather than passwords entered by users and subject to issues created > > > > by different input mechanisms and effects on eyeballs. > > > > > > > > I can see that we might want to change "recommended" to > > "RECOMMENDED", > > > > and I don't object to that (Jim?). Beyond that, I'm not sure where > > > > you're going with "PRECIS profiles are to be used as part of a > > > > protocol as opposed to part of a deployment." It's really both, > > > > depending upon the situation. In this case, it's saying that if > > your > > > > server supports non-ASCII passwords, you'd better use the > > OpaqueString > > > > profile to handle them. If your server doesn't (it supports only > > > > > > I'm much happier with your prose description here than the snippet > > quoted > > > from the document -- what's in the document now seems to be weaker > > than > > > what you say ("pick a standard; PRECIS is a standard" vs "you should > > use > > > PRECIS, though here's an out if you can't for some reason"). > > > > > > My primary concern here is that the client and server need to know to > > use > > > the same standard (whatever it is). Making this RFC say flatly "use > > > PRECIS" is IMO the easiest way to do that, though given how much other > > > stuff in EPP has to be set by out-of-band configuration I won't raise > > a > > > fuss if this ends up being another one. If it does need to be known > > out of > > > band, though, my preference is always for that need to be stated in > > the > > > RFC. > > > > > > > ASCII passwords), we're good. From a PRECIS point of view, I don't > > > > see more that needs to be done with this. > > > > > > > > I think a large part of the point of the text that Jim added is an > > > > acknowledgement that in the common case of ASCII-only passwords, we > > > > don't have to worry about normalization/canonicalization of password > > > > strings at all, and just doing straight byte-string comparisons > > works. > > > > And the OpaqueString profile is there for cases where it's needed. > > > > > > > > Now, it's certainly true that if a server *supports* non-ASCII > > > > passwords, then *all* password processing on that server has to use > > > > the OpaqueString profile, even if there are not any actual non-ASCII > > > > passwords present... just in case one might show up. And I think > > the > > > > text does say that. > > > > > > (repeating myself, but I think the text says "all password processing > > on > > > that server has to use the chosen standard for non-ASCII passwords" > > [which > > > is not necessarily the OpaqueString PRECIS profile]) > > > > > > > Is there something in this discussion that I'm missing that I need > > to > > > > address? Is there specific text you might suggest? Are there other > > > > issues beyond this one that are still open? How close are we to > > > > resolving this? > > > > > > I think just adding the extra background and your sense of what the > > text is > > > trying to convey has been a big help. I would suggest rewording to: > > > > > > [...]. If non- > > > ASCII characters are supported with the plain text password, then > > use > > > a standard for passwords with international characters; the > > > OpaqueString PRECIS profile in [RFC8265] is recommended in the > > absence of > > > other considerations. > > > > > > Your explanation suffices such that I will not require this change to > > clear > > > my Discuss, though. > > > > > > -Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
