Re: Closing the NAIbis i18n discussion

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> >The implied requirement is that users send domain names in the same format
> >that they are included in the RADIUS proxy routing table.  As Alan noted,
> >this assumption seems to work today.
> >  
> >
> Yes. One case where pure reliance on users might still fail is roaming, if
> you have one network which has stored the name in UTF-8 and another
> one in ASCII...

  I'm confused.  If it can be represented in 7-bit ASCII, it's UTF-8
compatible.  The only concern, then, is the UTF-8 extensions to ASCII
which may "map" to 8-bit ASCII.  That's the only situation where the
"same" name can have two representations.

  If that happens, then the users won't be able to authenticate, and
the problem will quickly be brought to the attention of the
appropriate admin.

  As a related question, which user-client implementations permit
entry of data in 8-bit ASCII, and which permit UTF-8?  Maybe I can do
<ALT>-<foo> on a Windows box to type in 8-bit characters.  But I'm
sure I can change the locale, and type in glyphs which end up as
UTF-8.

> the user wouldn't know what to enter to get his transaction
> routed through the network. That's why I believe its still useful
> for the RFC to indicate what the correct format is.

  I don't think the user has a *choice* as to how to enter his name.  The 
user-client interface will most likely make that choice for him.

  I just don't see this as a problem.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>