One document matched: draft-saintandre-xmpp-i18n-00.txt
None P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track March 1, 2010
Expires: September 2, 2010
Internationalized Addresses in XMPP
draft-saintandre-xmpp-i18n-00
Abstract
XMPP as defined in RFC 3920 uses stringprep in the preparation and
comparison of non-ASCII characters within JabberIDs. This document
explores whether it makes sense to use stringprep in the document
that supersedes RFC 3920.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft XMPP I18N March 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Domainpart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Localpart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Resourcepart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft XMPP I18N March 2010
1. Introduction
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol as defined in [XMPP]
uses stringprep [STRINGPREP] in the preparation and comparison of
non-ASCII characters within JabberIDs (JIDs). XMPP addresses are of
the form <localpart@domainpart/resourcepart>, where the localpart and
resourcepart are optional but quite common. RFC 3920 did the
following: (1) specified the use of IDNA2003 [IDNA] and Nameprep
[NAMEPREP] for the domainpart of a JID, (2) defined the Nodeprep
profile of stringprep for the localpart of a JID, and (3) defined the
Resourceprep profile of stringprep for the resourecepart of a JID.
The change from stringprep in IDNA2003 to an inclusion approach to
internationalized addresses in IDNA2008 (see for example [RATIONALE])
raises the question whether it makes sense for XMPP to also change
its approach to the preparation and comparison of non-ASCII
characters in the localpart and resourcepart aspects of a JID.
Therefore this document explores the issue of internationalized
addresses in XMPP as input to the revisions captured more formally in
[XMPPBIS].
2. Background
The inclusion approach in IDNA2008 makes sense because domain names
were always limited to the letter-digits-hyphen ("LDH") pattern; the
progression to non-ASCII simply introduced more characters that might
qualify as letters and (in some cases) digits. Extrapolating from
that pattern, [RATIONALE] argues that there is no good reason for a
domain name to include characters such as symbols (e.g., hearts and
stars), since the purpose of a domain name is to provide a stable
identifier for communication and interaction over the Internet, not a
personally expressive name for a person or a fun tag for information.
The localpart and resourcepart of a JID might serve a different kind
of purpose. Many end users of XMPP-based instant messaging (IM)
systems might expect that the username (localpart) portion of a JID
could be expressive of their identity in some way. Similarly,
occupants of XMPP-based chatrooms might expect that their in-room
nickname (resourcepart) could be a fun conversation-starter, perhaps
even more so than a normal username; for example, a regular visitor
to an XMPP chatroom that I frequent has an in-room nickname of "The
King" where "King" is represented by the Unicode codepoint 'BLACK
CHESS KING' (U+265A). Such characters might difficult to communicate
in some contexts (e.g., in screen readers for the blind), but are
expressive and fun, which is not an unimportant consideration for
many IM users.
Does the desire for an expressive username or nickname trump the need
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft XMPP I18N March 2010
for human-readable identifiers? Given the wide implementation of
full-Unicode addresses in user-oriented XMPP applications, IM client
developers seem to think so.
These admittedly anecdotal and subjective considerations vaguely
indicate that the inclusion approach pursued in the IDNA2008
initiative is quite appropriate for the more restricted class of
domain names but perhaps not as appropriate for the localpart or
resourcepart of an XMPP address.
That being said, some XMPP implementations (e.g., a custom client) or
deployments (e.g., a military system) might wish to "lock down" the
expressive potential of XMPP addresses. Currently there is no way
for an implementation or deployment to do so in standardized manner
that can be communicated to other entities on the network (e.g.,
during account provisioning). Given that a deployed XMPP service
acts in some ways like a registrar does for domain names, such
methods might be helpful, even if out of scope for [XMPPBIS].
3. Recommendations
This document does not yet provide definitive recommendations, but
instead mainly seeks to foster discussion about internationalized
addresses in XMPP. However, there are three possible approaches that
the XMPP WG might pursue in relation to its existing stringprep
profiles:
1. Keep using Nameprep, Nodeprep, and/or Resourceprep as they are
defined today.
2. Collaborate with other interested parties or working groups to
define a new version of stringprep that tracks changes to Unicode
since Unicode 3.2 as currently specified in [STRINGPREP].
3. Pursue the general model followed in the IDNA2008 work by
defining a tiered model of valid, disallowed, and unassigned
characters; such an effort might be pursued only within the XMPP
community (for Nodeprep, Resourceprep, or both) or more generally
in concert with other users of stringprep.
The XMPP WG might even decide to use a mix of these approaches, e.g.
to use the new, non-stringprep IDNA2008 approach for domainparts but
the existing Nodeprep and Resourceprep profiles for localparts and
resourceparts.
3.1. Domainpart
RFC 3920 specifies the use of IDNA2003 for the domainpart of a JID.
This document does not question the reasoning behind the IDNA2008
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft XMPP I18N March 2010
work and therefore recommends the use of IDNA2008 technologies in
[XMPPBIS].
3.2. Localpart
This document does not yet provide a recommendation regarding the
localpart of a JID (e.g., whether to replace or update the Nodeprep
profile of stringprep).
3.3. Resourcepart
This document does not yet provide a recommendation regarding the
resourcepart of a JID (e.g., whether to replace or update the
Resourceprep profile of stringprep).
4. Security Considerations
The inclusion of non-ASCII characters in XMPP addresses has important
security implications, such as the ability to mimic characters or
entire addresses. These issues are explored at some length in
[MIMIC]. Other security considerations might apply and will be
described in a future version of this specification.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for the IANA.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IDNA] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[NAMEPREP]
Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
RFC 3491, March 2003.
[STRINGPREP]
Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft XMPP I18N March 2010
[XMPP] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004.
6.2. Informative References
[MIMIC] Saint-Andre, P., "Best Practices to Discourage JID
Mimicking", XSF XEP 0165, December 2007.
[RATIONALE]
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
Rationale", draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-17 (work in
progress), January 2010.
[XMPPBIS] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-04 (work
in progress), November 2009.
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Saint-Andre Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 6]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:17:11 |