On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: >On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Gutmann ><pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>I would urge, as I think I did before, some fairly strong warnings that, at >>>least until the issues are clarified in PKCS#11 itself, one should be very >>>certain one knows what one is doing (and what the consequences of one's >>>choices will be) if one decides to move beyond the safety and general >>>understanding of the ASCII/ ISO 646/ IA5 letter and digit repertoire. >> I'd go even further than that and just mandate MUST ASCII. This is a simple >> means of pointing to a PKCS #11 object, not a universal means of communicating >> abstract concepts in any language known to man. > >Correct, but that can be done by the OASIS PKCS #11 group, not by >IETF. Here the draft proposes a way to expose PKCS #11 objects/tokens >as a URI. It cannot mandate the format of the PKCS #11 attributes a >module will contain. hi Nikos, I agree with Nico that RECOMMENDed for ASCII use in labels would be fine. I'm gonna leave the new text for the new draft 18 discussing issues with the PKCS#11 spec not being clear about how to normalize UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, and what is our recommendation with regard to that. I will revisit it today and send a new version draft for draft 18 here. J. -- Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@xxxxxxxxxx>