Modern Network Unicode
draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carsten Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2019-07-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-00
DISPATCH Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track July 04, 2019
Expires: January 5, 2020
Modern Network Unicode
draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-00
Abstract
RFC 5198 both defines common conventions for the use of Unicode in
network protocols and caters for the specific requirements of the
legacy protocol Telnet. In applications that do not need Telnet
compatibility, some of the decisions of RFC 5198 are cumbersome.
The present specification defines "Modern Network Unicode" (MNU),
which is a form of RFC 5198 network unicode that can be used in
specifications that require the exchange of plain text over networks
and where just mandating UTF-8 (RFC 3629) may not be sufficient, but
there is also no desire to import all of the baggage of RFC 5198.
In addition to a basic "Clean Modern Network Unicode" (CMNU), this
specification defines a number of variances that can be used to
tailor MNU to specific areas of application.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Modern Network Unicode July 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Clean Modern Network Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. With lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. With CR-tolerant lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. With HT Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. With CCC Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. With NFKC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.6. With Unicode Version NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
(Insert copy of abstract here.)
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Characters in this specification are named with their Unicode name
notated in the usual form U+NNNN or with their ASCII names (such as
CR, LF, HT, RS, NUL) [RFC0020].
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Modern Network Unicode July 2019
2. Clean Modern Network Unicode
Clean Modern Network Unicode (CMNU) is the form of Modern Network
Unicode that does not make use of any of the variances defined below.
It requires conformance to [RFC3629] and [RFC5198], with the
following changes:
o Control characters (U+0000 to U+001F and U+007F to U+009F) MUST
NOT be used. Note that this also excludes line endings, so a CMNU
string cannot extend beyong a single line. (See also Section 3.1
below.)
o The characters U+2028 and U+2029 MUST NOT be used. (In case
future Unicode versions add to the Unicode character categories Zl
or Zp, any characters in these categories MUST NOT be used.)
o Mandates of [RFC5198] that are specific to a version of Unicode
are relaxed, e.g., there is no check for unassigned code points.
Note that this means that a CMNU implementation may not be able to
handle the normalization of a character not yet assigned in the
version of Unicode that it uses. (See also Section 3.6 below.)
3. Variances
In addition to CMNU, this specification describes a number of
variances that can be used in the form "Modern Network Unicode with
VVV", or "Modern Network Unicode with VVV, WWW, and ZZZ" for multiple
variances used. Specifications that cannot directly use CMNU may be
able to use MNU with one or more of these variances added.
3.1. With lines
While Clean Modern Network Unicode rules out line endings completely,
line-structured text is often required. The variance "with lines"
allows the use of line endings, represented by a single LF character
(which is then the only control character allowed).
3.2. With CR-tolerant lines
The variance "with CR-tolerant lines" allows the sequence CR LF as
well as a single LF character as a line ending. This may enable
existing texts to be used as MNU without processing at the sender
side (substituting that by processing at the receiver side). Note
that, with this variance, a CR character cannot be used anywhere else
but immediately preceding an LF character.
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Modern Network Unicode July 2019
3.3. With HT Characters
In some cases, the use of HT characters ("TABs") cannot be completely
excluded. The variance "with HT characters" allows their use,
without defining their meaning (e.g., equivalence with spaces, column
definitions, etc.).
3.4. With CCC Characters
Some applications of MNU may need to add specific control characters,
such as RS [RFC7464] or FF characters. This variance is spelled with
the ASCII name of the control character for CCC, e.g., "with RS
characters".
3.5. With NFKC
Some applications require a stronger form of normalization than NFC.
The variance "with NFKC" swaps out NFC and uses NFKC instead. This
is probably best used in conjunction with "with Unicode version NNN".
3.6. With Unicode Version NNN
Some applications need to be sure that a certain Unicode version is
used. The variance "with Unicode version NNN" (where nnn is a
Unicode version number) defines the Unicode version in use as NNN.
Also, it requires that only characters assigned in that Unicode
version are being used.
4. Discussion
At the time of writing, RFCs are formatted in "Modern Network Unicode
with CR-tolerant lines and FF characters".
The handling of line endings (not being part of CMNU, providing LF-
only and LF/CRLF line endings as variances) may be controversial. In
particular, calling out CR-tolerance as an extra (and often
undesirable) feature may seem novel to some readers. The handling as
specified here is much closer to the way line endings are handled on
the software side than the cumbersome rules of [RFC5198]. More
generally speaking, one could say that the present specification is
intended to be used by state of the art protocols going forward,
maybe less so by existing protocols that have legacy baggage.
Even in the "with CR-tolerant lines" variance, the CR character is
only allowed as an embellishment of an immediately following LF
character. This reflects the fact that overprinting has only seen
niche usage for quite a number of decades now.
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Modern Network Unicode July 2019
Unicode Line and Paragraph separators probably seemed like a good
idea at the time, but have not taken hold. Today, their occurrence
is more likely to trigger a bug or even serve as an attack.
The version-nonspecific nature of CMNU creates some fuzziness that
may be undesirable but is more realistic in environments where
applications choose the Unicode version with the Unicode library that
happens to be available to them.
5. IANA considerations
This specification places no requirements on IANA.
6. Security considerations
The security considerations of [RFC5198] apply.
A variance "with NUL characters" would create specific security
considerations as discussed in the security considerations of
[RFC5198] and should therefore only be used in circumstances that do
require it.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Modern Network Unicode July 2019
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7464] Williams, N., "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Text
Sequences", RFC 7464, DOI 10.17487/RFC7464, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7464>.
Acknowledgements
Klaus Hartke and Henk Birkholz drove the author out of his mind
enough to make him finally write this up.
Author's Address
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Bormann Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 6]