Re: ldapbis WG Last Call on ldapbis-syntaxes, ldapbis-strprep

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> Hallvard,
> 
> The way you worded your suggestion, the suggestion applies to all
> currently prohibited characters.

Yes, I assumed that was the simplest way to do it.  Also:

> That is problematic as prohibiting certain assigned code points as
> well as all unassigned code points is quite appropriate.  (Note that
> as code points are assigned, one can update the profile to properly
> handle them.)

Assigned code points: OK.  I only know portions of Unicode, so I don't
know what all the code points are for.  I simply assumed that they are
there to be used, so someone who uses them may want to put them i LDAP.

Unassigned code points: Prohibiting them looks more problematic to me.
That means the server becomes obsolete when new code points are
assigned.  If one wants to use such new code points, it will then be
convenient if one can configure the server to not prohibit them.  One
won't get features like proper case folding, but at least one can but
them in the directory.

> If you limit your suggestion to just private use code points, then
> I think we might be able to change the algorithm such that those
> points may be handled in a "local manner" (meaning that the
> implementation may map, normalize, prohibit, bidi check,
> insignificant character remove as they please) but we'd also
> need to not only state some interoperability and security
> considerations.
> 
> I don't necessarily support making such a change.  I offer it for
> discussion purposes.

Well, as you can guess, my vote is for it.  Or more:-)

-- 
Hallvard