Re: Implementation Survey: How does your EAP peer/RADIUS proxy handle internationalization?

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> Attempting to summarize: (I hope you Bernard posted all the
> responses you got privately, I've only seen two.)

I will look through my email but I don't think I got any private
responses.  I think we have three responses.

> It looks like implementations may actually be capable of
> accepting non-ASCII input. However, there does not appear
> to be any specific support for character set aware comparisons,
> normalization, etc.

Yes.  UTF-8 can be sent in the NAI, but the RADIUS proxies are doing
exact string matches against the realm table.  This makes me
wonder if we don't need to provide guidance on what the proxies *should*
do.

> What does this imply? I'm not quite sure...

I think it implies that proxy implementations may have problems with
internationalization.

> and the input
> is too small to make any definite conclusions. But it could
> be that alternative #1 for NAIbis issue resolution is preferrable,
> given that it better ensures correctness of lookups and
> comparisons. Comments?

Given the feedback we have received, it would appear to me that
implementations are doing good to be correctly processing UTF-8, let alone
IDNA.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>