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

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:51 PM 6/27/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>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.

I think its best we stick with versioning consistent
with Section 7.3 of RFC 3454.

>> 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:-)

Noted.

Kurt