Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-05-01 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
I'm more comfortable with this model than with adding more steps. On 4/19/17 3:37 PM, William Fisher wrote: > An alternative is to treat finalization as an application/protocol > responsibility. RFC 7564 section 6.2. "Further Excluded Characters" > can be interpreted as allowing a protocol to

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-04-19 Thread Sam Whited
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre 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

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-03-23 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-03-23 Thread William Fisher
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.

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-03-21 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 2/26/17 5:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 2/13/17 12:04 AM, William Fisher wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> wrote: >>> Did you mean U+212A (KELVIN SIGN)? That decomposes to U+004B (LATIN CAPITAL >>> LETTER K). >>> The full example

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2017-02-12 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Hi Bill, thanks for your message and sorry about the seriously delayed reply - I've been working to finish some other Internet-Drafts and now have time again to finish the PRECIS updates. On 10/13/16 1:33 PM, William Fisher wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2016-10-13 Thread William Fisher
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > It's not clear to me that U+1F11 has the problem you describe; perhaps could > you sketch it out further? Oops, that should be U+0001F11A. The full example is: "\U0001f11aevin" => "(K)evin" => "(k)evin" I wrote a

Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2016-10-12 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 10/12/16 1:56 PM, William Fisher wrote: Should enforcing a string using PRECIS be idempotent? As far as I know, that was not a design criterion for PRECIS. Naturally, it might be a desirable property nonetheless. If I apply the enforce operation to a string twice, should I get the same

[precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

2016-10-12 Thread William Fisher
Should enforcing a string using PRECIS be idempotent? If I apply the enforce operation to a string twice, should I get the same result as applying it just once? The nickname profile is NOT idempotent for some inputs. 1. Certain characters are NFKC normalized to sequences with ASCII spaces. This