> On 2 jan 2015, at 15:30, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, 02 January, 2015 07:57 +0100 Patrik Fältström > <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> For the record, I like what is suggested the below. > > Wfm, but please note the other comments in my prior note. To > summarize, normalization is not the only issue. Even for some > normalization cases, NFC is not the cure. This is why I think the way NFC is mentioned is correct. > For example, NFKC is > needed to rationalize characters of various widths but causes > problems elsewhere. So, I would suggest some additional words > that say, more or less, that, until PKCS#11 is revised to be > clear about how to handle characters outside the ASCII > repertoire, those who discover a need to use such characters > should be cautious, conservative, and expend extra effort to be > sure they know what they are doing and that failure to do so > will create both operational and security risks. Having this clarification explicit and not only implicit would make the text even better. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail