< draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-02.txt		draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-03.txt >
	PRECIS P. Saint-Andre		PRECIS P. Saint-Andre
	Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.		Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Obsoletes: 4013 (if approved) A. Melnikov		Obsoletes: 4013 (if approved) A. Melnikov
	Intended status: Standards Track Isode Ltd		Intended status: Standards Track Isode Ltd
	Expires: October 27, 2013 April 25, 2013		Expires: January 13, 2014 July 12, 2013
	Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing		Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing
	Simple User Names and Passwords		Simple User Names and Passwords
	draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-02		draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes how to handle Unicode strings representing		This document describes how to handle Unicode strings representing
	simple user names and passwords, primarily for purposes of		simple user names and passwords, primarily for purposes of
	comparison. This profile is intended to be used by Simple		comparison. This profile is intended to be used by Simple
	Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) mechanisms (such as PLAIN		Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) mechanisms (such as PLAIN
	and SCRAM-SHA-1), as well as other protocols that exchange simple		and SCRAM-SHA-1), as well as other protocols that exchange simple
	user names or passwords. This document obsoletes RFC 4013.		user names or passwords. This document obsoletes RFC 4013.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 37 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Simple User Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Simple User Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. User Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. User Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.1. Password/Passphrase Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.1. Password/Passphrase Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.2. Reuse of PRECIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2. Identifier Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.3. Reuse of Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.3. Reuse of PRECIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			5.4. Reuse of Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.1. Use of IdentifierClass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. Use of IdentifierClass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.2. Use of FreeformClass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.2. Use of FreeformClass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Appendix A. Differences from RFC 4013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Appendix A. Differences from RFC 4013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	1.1. Overview		1.1. Overview
	User names and passwords are used pervasively in authentication and		User names and passwords are used pervasively in authentication and
	authorization on the Internet. To increase the likelihood that the		authorization on the Internet. To increase the likelihood that the
	input and comparison of user names and passwords will work in ways		input and comparison of user names and passwords will work in ways
	that make sense for typical users throughout the world, this document		that make sense for typical users throughout the world, this document
	skipping to change at page 3, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 30 ¶
	The algorithms defined in this document assume that all strings are		The algorithms defined in this document assume that all strings are
	comprised of characters from the Unicode character set [UNICODE].		comprised of characters from the Unicode character set [UNICODE].
	The algorithms are designed for use in Simple Authentication and		The algorithms are designed for use in Simple Authentication and
	Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] mechanisms, such as PLAIN [RFC4616]		Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] mechanisms, such as PLAIN [RFC4616]
	and SCRAM-SHA-1 [RFC5802]. However, they might be applicable		and SCRAM-SHA-1 [RFC5802]. However, they might be applicable
	wherever simple user names or passwords are used. This profile is		wherever simple user names or passwords are used. This profile is
	not intended for use in preparing strings that are not simple user		not intended for use in preparing strings that are not simple user
	names (e.g., email addresses, DNS domain names, LDAP distinguished		names (e.g., email addresses, DNS domain names, LDAP distinguished
	names), nor in cases where identifiers or secrets are not strings		names), nor in cases where identifiers or secrets are not strings
	(e.g., keys or certificates) or require different handling (e.g.,		(e.g., keys or certificates) or require specialized handling (e.g.,
	case folding).		case folding).
	This document builds upon the PRECIS framework defined in		This document builds upon the PRECIS framework defined in
	[FRAMEWORK], which differs fundamentally from the stringprep		[I-D.ietf-precis-framework], which differs fundamentally from the
	technology [RFC3454] used in SASLprep [RFC4013]. The primary		stringprep technology [RFC3454] used in SASLprep [RFC4013]. The
	difference is that stringprep profiles allowed all characters except		primary difference is that stringprep profiles allowed all characters
	those which were explicitly disallowed, whereas PRECIS profiles		except those which were explicitly disallowed, whereas PRECIS
	disallow all characters except those which are explicitly allowed		profiles disallow all characters except those which are explicitly
	(this "inclusion model" was originally used for internationalized		allowed (this "inclusion model" was originally used for
	domain names in [RFC5891]; see [RFC5894] for further discussion). It		internationalized domain names in [RFC5891]; see [RFC5894] for
	is important to keep this distinction in mind when comparing the		further discussion). It is important to keep this distinction in
	technology defined in this document to SASLprep [RFC4013].		mind when comparing the technology defined in this document to
			SASLprep [RFC4013].
	This document obsoletes RFC 4013.		This document obsoletes RFC 4013.
	1.2. Terminology		1.2. Terminology
	Many important terms used in this document are defined in		Many important terms used in this document are defined in
	[FRAMEWORK], [RFC4422], [RFC5890], [RFC6365], and [UNICODE]. The		[I-D.ietf-precis-framework], [RFC4422], [RFC5890], [RFC6365], and
	term "non-ASCII space" refers to any Unicode code point with a		[UNICODE]. The term "non-ASCII space" refers to any Unicode code
	general category of "Zs", with the exception of U+0020 (here called		point with a general category of "Zs", with the exception of U+0020
	"ASCII space").		(here called "ASCII space").
	As used here, the term "password" is not literally limited to a word;		As used here, the term "password" is not literally limited to a word;
	i.e., a password could be a passphrase consisting of more than one		i.e., a password could be a passphrase consisting of more than one
	word, perhaps separated by spaces or other such characters.		word, perhaps separated by spaces or other such characters.
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
	[RFC2119].		[RFC2119].
	skipping to change at page 5, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 49 ¶
	Note also that common constructions such as "user@example.com" are		Note also that common constructions such as "user@example.com" are
	allowed as simple user names when using software that conforms to		allowed as simple user names when using software that conforms to
	this specification, as they were under [RFC4013].		this specification, as they were under [RFC4013].
	2.2. Preparation		2.2. Preparation
	A simple user name MUST NOT be zero bytes in length. This rule is to		A simple user name MUST NOT be zero bytes in length. This rule is to
	be enforced after any normalization and mapping of code points.		be enforced after any normalization and mapping of code points.
	Each simplepart of a simple user name MUST conform to the definition		Each simplepart of a simple user name MUST conform to the definition
	of the PRECIS IdentifierClass provided in [FRAMEWORK], where the		of the PRECIS IdentifierClass provided in
	width mapping, additional mapping, case mapping, normalization, and		[I-D.ietf-precis-framework], where the width mapping, additional
	directionality rules are as described below.		mapping, case mapping, normalization, and directionality rules are as
			described below.
	1. Fullwidth and halfwidth characters MUST be mapped to their		1. Fullwidth and halfwidth characters MUST be mapped to their
	decomposition equivalents.		decomposition equivalents.
	2. Additional mappings MAY be applied, such as those defined in		2. So-called additional mappings MAY be applied, such as those
	[I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].		defined in [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings].
	3. Uppercase and titlecase characters MUST be mapped to their		3. Uppercase and titlecase characters MAY be mapped to their
	lowercase equivalents.		lowercase equivalents.
	4. Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC) MUST be applied to all		4. Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC) MUST be applied to all
	characters.		characters.
	With regard to directionality, the "Bidi Rule" provided in [RFC5893]		With regard to directionality, the "Bidi Rule" provided in [RFC5893]
	applies.		applies.
			SASL mechanisms that directly re-use this profile MUST specify
			whether case mapping is to be applied to authentication IDs, and
			when. SASL mechanisms SHOULD delay any case mapping to the last
			possible moment, such as when doing a lookup by username, username
			comparisons, or generating a cryptographic salt from a username.
			Application protocols that use SASL (such as IMAP [RFC4616] and XMPP
			[RFC6120]) and that directly re-use this profile MUST specify whether
			case mapping is to be applied to authorization IDs. Such "SASL
			application protocols" SHOULD delay any case mapping of authorization
			IDs to the last possible moment, which happens to necessarily be on
			the server side.
			In keeping with RFC4422, SASL application protocols are not to apply
			this or any other profile to authentication IDs, and SASL mechanisms
			are not to apply this or any other profile to authorization IDs.
	3. Passwords		3. Passwords
	3.1. Definition		3.1. Definition
	For purposes of preparation and comparison of passwords, this		For purposes of preparation and comparison of passwords, this
	document specifies that a password is a string of Unicode code points		document specifies that a password is a string of Unicode code points
	[UNICODE], encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629], and conformant to the		[UNICODE], encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629], and conformant to the
	PRECIS FreeformClass.		PRECIS FreeformClass.
	Therefore the syntax for a password is defined as follows using the		Therefore the syntax for a password is defined as follows using the
	skipping to change at page 8, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 24 ¶
	U+0056 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER V (3) U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI		U+0056 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER V (3) U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI
	is compatibility equivalent to U+0066 LATIN SMALL LETTER F and		is compatibility equivalent to U+0066 LATIN SMALL LETTER F and
	U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I. Under SASLprep, the use of NFKC also		U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I. Under SASLprep, the use of NFKC also
	handled the mapping of fullwidth and halfwidth code points to		handled the mapping of fullwidth and halfwidth code points to
	their decomposition equivalents (see [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]).		their decomposition equivalents (see [I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]).
	Although it is expected that code points with compatibility		Although it is expected that code points with compatibility
	equivalents are rare in existing user names, for migration		equivalents are rare in existing user names, for migration
	purposes deployments might want to search their database of user		purposes deployments might want to search their database of user
	names for Unicode code points with compatibility equivalents and		names for Unicode code points with compatibility equivalents and
	map those code points to their compatibility equivalents.		map those code points to their compatibility equivalents.
	o SASLprep mapped non-ASCII spaces to ASCII space (U+0020), whereas		o SASLprep mapped non-ASCII spaces to ASCII space (U+0020), whereas
	the PRECIS IdentifierClass entirely disallows non-ASCII spaces.		the PRECIS IdentifierClass entirely disallows non-ASCII spaces.
	The non-ASCII space characters are U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE, U+1680		The non-ASCII space characters are U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE, U+1680
	OGHAM SPACE MARK, U+180E MONGOLIAN VOWEL SEPARATOR, U+2000 EN QUAD		OGHAM SPACE MARK, U+180E MONGOLIAN VOWEL SEPARATOR, U+2000 EN QUAD
	through U+200A HAIR SPACE, U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE, U+205F		through U+200A HAIR SPACE, U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE, U+205F
	MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE, and U+3000 IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE. For		MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE, and U+3000 IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE. For
	migration purposes, deployments might want to convert non-ASCII		migration purposes, deployments might want to convert non-ASCII
	space characters to ASCII space in simple user names.		space characters to ASCII space in simple user names.
	o SASLprep mapped the "characters commonly mapped to nothing" from		o SASLprep mapped the "characters commonly mapped to nothing" from
	Appendix B.1 of [RFC3454]) to nothing, whereas the PRECIS		Appendix B.1 of [RFC3454]) to nothing, whereas the PRECIS
	IdentifierClass entirely disallows most of these characters, which		IdentifierClass entirely disallows most of these characters, which
	correspond to the code points from the "M" category defined under		correspond to the code points from the "M" category defined under
	Section 6.13 of [FRAMEWORK] (with the exception of U+1806		Section 6.13 of [I-D.ietf-precis-framework] (with the exception of
	MONGOLIAN TODO SOFT HYPHEN, which was "commonly mapped to nothing"		U+1806 MONGOLIAN TODO SOFT HYPHEN, which was "commonly mapped to
	in Unicode 3.2 but at the time of this writing does not have a		nothing" in Unicode 3.2 but at the time of this writing does not
	derived property of Default_Ignorable_Code_Point in Unicode 6.1).		have a derived property of Default_Ignorable_Code_Point in Unicode
	For migration purposes, deployments might want to remove code		6.1). For migration purposes, deployments might want to remove
	points contained in the PRECIS "M" category from simple user		code points contained in the PRECIS "M" category from simple user
	names.		names.
	o SASLprep allowed uppercase and titlecase characters, whereas this		o SASLprep allowed uppercase and titlecase characters, whereas this
	usage of the PRECIS IdentifierClass maps uppercase and titlecase		usage of the PRECIS IdentifierClass maps uppercase and titlecase
	characters to their lowercase equivalents. For migration		characters to their lowercase equivalents. For migration
	purposes, deployments can either convert uppercase and titlecase		purposes, deployments can either convert uppercase and titlecase
	characters to their lowercase equivalents in simple user names		characters to their lowercase equivalents in simple user names
	(thus losing the case information) or preserve uppercase and		(thus losing the case information) or preserve uppercase and
	titlecase characters and ignore the case difference when comparing		titlecase characters and ignore the case difference when comparing
	simple user names.		simple user names.
	4.2. Passwords		4.2. Passwords
	skipping to change at page 9, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 35 ¶
	U+0049 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I and U+0056 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER V		U+0049 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I and U+0056 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER V
	(3) U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI is compatibility equivalent to		(3) U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI is compatibility equivalent to
	U+0066 LATIN SMALL LETTER F and U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I. Under		U+0066 LATIN SMALL LETTER F and U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I. Under
	SASLprep, the use of NFKC also handled the mapping of fullwidth		SASLprep, the use of NFKC also handled the mapping of fullwidth
	and halfwidth code points to their decomposition equivalents (see		and halfwidth code points to their decomposition equivalents (see
	[I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]). Although it is expected that code		[I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]). Although it is expected that code
	points with compatibility equivalents are rare in existing		points with compatibility equivalents are rare in existing
	passwords, some passwords that matched when SASLprep was used		passwords, some passwords that matched when SASLprep was used
	might no longer work when the rules in this specification are		might no longer work when the rules in this specification are
	applied.		applied.
	o SASLprep mapped the "characters commonly mapped to nothing" from		o SASLprep mapped the "characters commonly mapped to nothing" from
	Appendix B.1 of [RFC3454]) to nothing, whereas the PRECIS		Appendix B.1 of [RFC3454]) to nothing, whereas the PRECIS
	FreeformClass entirely disallows such characters, which correspond		FreeformClass entirely disallows such characters, which correspond
	to the code points from the "M" category defined under Section		to the code points from the "M" category defined under Section
	6.13 of [FRAMEWORK] (with the exception of U+1806 MONGOLIAN TODO		6.13 of [I-D.ietf-precis-framework] (with the exception of U+1806
	SOFT HYPHEN, which was commonly mapped to nothing in Unicode 3.2		MONGOLIAN TODO SOFT HYPHEN, which was commonly mapped to nothing
	but at the time of this writing is allowed by Unicode 6.1). In		in Unicode 3.2 but at the time of this writing is allowed by
	practice, this change will probably have no effect on comparison,		Unicode 6.1). In practice, this change will probably have no
	but user-oriented software might reject such code points instead		effect on comparison, but user-oriented software might reject such
	of ignoring them during password preparation.		code points instead of ignoring them during password preparation.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	5.1. Password/Passphrase Strength		5.1. Password/Passphrase Strength
	The ability to include a wide range of characters in passwords and		The ability to include a wide range of characters in passwords and
	passphrases can increase the potential for creating a strong password		passphrases can increase the potential for creating a strong password
	with high entropy. However, in practice, the ability to include such		with high entropy. However, in practice, the ability to include such
	characters ought to be weighed against the possible need to reproduce		characters ought to be weighed against the possible need to reproduce
	them on various devices using various input methods.		them on various devices using various input methods.
	5.2. Reuse of PRECIS		5.2. Identifier Comparison
	The security considerations described in [FRAMEWORK] apply to the		The process of comparing identifiers (such as SASL simple user names,
	"IdentifierClass" and "FreeformClass" base string classes used in		authentication identifiers, and authorization identifiers) can lead
	this document for simple user names and passwords, respectively.		to either false negatives or false positives, both of which have
			security implications. A more detailed discussion can be found in
			[RFC6943].
	5.3. Reuse of Unicode		5.3. Reuse of PRECIS
			The security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-precis-framework]
			apply to the "IdentifierClass" and "FreeformClass" base string
			classes used in this document for simple user names and passwords,
			respectively.
			5.4. Reuse of Unicode
	The security considerations described in [UTR39] apply to the use of		The security considerations described in [UTR39] apply to the use of
	Unicode characters in user names and passwords.		Unicode characters in user names and passwords.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	6.1. Use of IdentifierClass		6.1. Use of IdentifierClass
	The IANA shall add an entry to the PRECIS Usage Registry for reuse of		The IANA shall add an entry to the PRECIS Usage Registry for reuse of
	the PRECIS IdentifierClass in SASL, as follows:		the PRECIS IdentifierClass in SASL, as follows:
	Applicability: Usernames in SASL and Kerberos.		Applicability: Usernames in SASL and Kerberos.
	Base Class: IdentifierClass.		Base Class: IdentifierClass.
	Subclass: No.		Subclass: No.
	Replaces: The SASLprep profile of Stringprep.		Replaces: The SASLprep profile of Stringprep.
	Width Mapping: Map fullwidth and halfwidth characters to their		Width Mapping: Map fullwidth and halfwidth characters to their
	decomposition equivalents.		decomposition equivalents.
	Additional Mappings: None.		Additional Mappings: None.
	Case Mapping: Map uppercase and titlecase characters to lowercase.		Case Mapping: To be defined by application protocols that use this
			profile.
	Normalization: NFC.		Normalization: NFC.
	Directionality: The "Bidi Rule" defined in RFC 5893 applies.		Directionality: The "Bidi Rule" defined in RFC 5893 applies.
	Specification: RFC XXXX. [Note to RFC Editor: please change XXXX to		Specification: RFC XXXX. [Note to RFC Editor: please change XXXX to
	the number issued for this specification.]		the number issued for this specification.]
	6.2. Use of FreeformClass		6.2. Use of FreeformClass
	The IANA shall add an entry to the PRECIS Usage Registry for reuse of		The IANA shall add an entry to the PRECIS Usage Registry for reuse of
	the PRECIS FreeformClass in SASL, as follows:		the PRECIS FreeformClass in SASL, as follows:
	skipping to change at page 11, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 41 ¶
	applying the SASLprep rules with Unicode 3.2 data, then make sure		applying the SASLprep rules with Unicode 3.2 data, then make sure
	that the PRECIS Working Group and KITTEN Working Group are		that the PRECIS Working Group and KITTEN Working Group are
	comfortable with any changes to the Unicode characters that are		comfortable with any changes to the Unicode characters that are
	allowed and disallowed. (See also the migration issues described		allowed and disallowed. (See also the migration issues described
	under Section 4.)		under Section 4.)
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[FRAMEWORK]		[I-D.ietf-precis-framework]
	Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "Precis Framework:		Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "Precis Framework:
	Handling Internationalized Strings in Protocols",		Handling Internationalized Strings in Protocols",
	draft-ietf-precis-framework-07 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-precis-framework-09 (work in progress),
	March 2013.		July 2013.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO		[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
	10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.		10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
	[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version		[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
	6.1", 2012,		6.1", 2012,
	<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.1.0/>.		<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.1.0/>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]		[I-D.ietf-precis-mappings]
	YONEYA, Y. and T. NEMOTO, "Mapping characters for PRECIS		YONEYA, Y. and T. NEMOTO, "Mapping characters for PRECIS
	classes", draft-ietf-precis-mappings-01 (work in		classes", draft-ietf-precis-mappings-02 (work in
	progress), December 2012.		progress), May 2013.
	[RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of		[RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
	Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,		Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
	December 2002.		December 2002.
	[RFC4013] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names		[RFC4013] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names
	and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.		and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.
	[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple		[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
	Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,		Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
	skipping to change at page 12, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 5 ¶
	Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.		Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
	[RFC5893] Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for		[RFC5893] Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for
	Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",		Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
	RFC 5893, August 2010.		RFC 5893, August 2010.
	[RFC5894] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for		[RFC5894] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
	Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and		Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
	Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.		Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.
			[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
			Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
	[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in		[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
	Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,		Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
	September 2011.		September 2011.
			[RFC6943] Thaler, D., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security
			Purposes", RFC 6943, May 2013.
	[UTR39] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #39:		[UTR39] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #39:
	Unicode Security Mechanisms", August 2010,		Unicode Security Mechanisms", August 2010,
	<http://unicode.org/reports/tr39/>.		<http://unicode.org/reports/tr39/>.
	Appendix A. Differences from RFC 4013		Appendix A. Differences from RFC 4013
	The following substantive modifications were made from RFC 4013.		The following substantive modifications were made from RFC 4013.
	o A single SASLprep algorithm was replaced by two separate		o A single SASLprep algorithm was replaced by two separate
	algorithms: one for simple user names and another for passwords.		algorithms: one for simple user names and another for passwords.
	o The new preparation algorithms use PRECIS instead of a stringprep		o The new preparation algorithms use PRECIS instead of a stringprep
	profile. The new algorithms work independenctly of Unicode		profile. The new algorithms work independenctly of Unicode
	versions.		versions.
	o As recommended in the PRECIS framwork, changed the Unicode		o As recommended in the PRECIS framwork, changed the Unicode
	normalization form from NFKC to NFC.		normalization form to NFC (from NFKC).
	o Some Unicode code points that were mapped to nothing in RFC 4013		o Some Unicode code points that were mapped to nothing in RFC 4013
	are simply disallowed by PRECIS.		are simply disallowed by PRECIS.
	Appendix B. Acknowledgements		Appendix B. Acknowledgements
	Thanks to Yoshiro YONEYA and Takahiro NEMOTO for implementation		The following individuals provided helpful feedback on this document:
	feedback. Thanks also to Marc Blanchet, Joe Hildebrand, Alan DeKok,		Marc Blanchet, Alan DeKok, Joe Hildebrand, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Simon
	Simon Josefsson, Jonathan Lennox, Matt Miller, Chris Newman, Pete		Josefsson, Jonathan Lennox, Matt Miller, Chris Newman, Pete Resnick,
	Resnick, Andrew Sullivan, and Nico Williams for their input.		Andrew Sullivan, and Nico Williams (Nico in particular provided text
			that was used in Section 2.2). Thanks also to Yoshiro YONEYA and
			Takahiro NEMOTO for implementation feedback.
	This document borrows some text from RFC 4013 and RFC 6120.		This document borrows some text from [RFC4013] and [RFC6120].
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Peter Saint-Andre		Peter Saint-Andre
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600		1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
	Denver, CO 80202		Denver, CO 80202
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1-303-308-3282		Phone: +1-303-308-3282
End of changes. 33 change blocks.
	63 lines changed or deleted		105 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/