On 5/11/18 1:04 PM, William Fisher wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> My thoughts on your proposed text is below.
>
> I, for one, thought you did a good job with such a complex topic.
>
> -Bill
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre
> wrote:
>
>> NEW
>
>> 3.3.3. Enforcement
>
>> A
Hi Peter,
My thoughts on your proposed text is below.
I, for one, thought you did a good job with such a complex topic.
-Bill
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
> NEW
> 3.3.3. Enforcement
> An entity that performs enforcement according to this profile MUST
> a
On 5/4/18 12:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/14/18 10:04 AM, Paul Crovella wrote:
>> Followup question on
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg01445.html
>>
>>> implementations should follow the order of rules in Section 7 of RFC 8264.
>>
>> Should string class validati
On 3/14/18 10:04 AM, Paul Crovella wrote:
> Followup question on
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg01445.html
>
>> implementations should follow the order of rules in Section 7 of RFC 8264.
>
> Should string class validation then be moved from the preparation step
> of all
Followup question on
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg01445.html
> implementations should follow the order of rules in Section 7 of RFC 8264.
Should string class validation then be moved from the preparation step
of all profiles to the end of enforcement? I don't know wheth
>
> Sigh.
>
> I'm sorry that we failed to make things clear and consistent.
>
> I agree with Bill that implementations should follow the order of rules
> in Section 7 of RFC 8264.
>
> Let me think about how we can clarify things. That might involve filing
> an erratum against RFC 8265.
>
> Pe
On 12/4/17 8:58 PM, William Fisher wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Christian Schudt
> wrote:
>> If a user wishes to create a username with U+212B (Angstrom sign), should an
>> application reject it (because it’s disallowed) or allow it, because
>> enforcement converts the character to a
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Christian Schudt
wrote:
> If a user wishes to create a username with U+212B (Angstrom sign), should an
> application reject it (because it’s disallowed) or allow it, because
> enforcement converts the character to a valid code point first?
I implemented enforceme
Hi all,
now that the new RFC 8264 / 8265 are out, I wanted to update my implementation,
which was based on the older RFCs.
Unfortunately the order of rules still confuses me.
During enforcement and comparison of a string, do I first validate a string,
then apply the rules (as written in
https
