5 Feb 2008 08:34
Re: Concerns about domain based names drafts
Shawn M Emery <Shawn.Emery <at> Sun.COM>
2008-02-05 07:34:17 GMT
2008-02-05 07:34:17 GMT
There has been no objections to leaving the *_utf8() function definitions in these drafts. Does the wg believe that the updated descriptions are sufficient to proceed? Shawn. -- Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >>> Section 5 seems to normatively introduce gss_import_name_utf8. The >>> specification of that function is not sufficient for implementation. >>> In addition, I didn't think we planned to introduce import_name_utf8 >>> or display_name_utf8 in this spec. I thought we intended to have an >>> informational note explaining how those functions will deal with the >>> domain based names. >>> The behavior for ACE encodings ing existings functions does need to be >>> normative. >>> >> I believe the *_utf8() functions belong in this document. I see no >> reason to publish a separate RFC just describing those two functions. >> I've seen no objections from the WG, but if desired we can call for >> consensus. I've updated the description, however, to be more exact. >> >> > Speaking as an individual: no objections from me. > >> The *_utf8() functions are recommended, while the ACE behaviour of the >> regular functions is required. >>(Continue reading)
RSS Feed