SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names and Passwords
RFC 4013

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
One sigh:
The formality of stringprep profiles is VERY high.
I wish it could include even ONE example of "string before and after".
I'm pretty sure this profile is case-sensitive (a and A do not match), but that is specified by omission, not commission (nothing about case folding). An example would probably make that 100% clear.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
One thing I think this document is missing is an applicabilty
statement. I.e, what I assume the applicability is is something like
the following:

    This document provides a way for protocols to specify comparisons
    of user identifiers and other "string" objects in a
    character-encoding neutral way. This document by itself does not
    change any existing protocols. Any protocol that wishes to use the
    techniques described in this document needs to explicitely do so,
    through a published RFC, in which precise details are given as to
    what objects are to be compared in the manner described in this
    document.

Or something like that. Right?