[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-blanchet-precis-framework) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 7564

Network Working Group                                     P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: 3454 (if approved)                                M. Blanchet
Intended status: Standards Track                                Viagenie
Expires: September 13, 2012                               March 12, 2012


   PRECIS Framework: Handling Internationalized Strings in Protocols
                     draft-ietf-precis-framework-02

Abstract

   Application protocols using Unicode code points in protocol strings
   need to prepare such strings in order to perform comparison
   operations (e.g., for purposes of authentication or authorization).
   This document defines a framework enabling application protocols to
   use various classes of strings in a way that depends on the
   properties of Unicode code points.  A specification using this
   framework can either directly use the base string classes or can
   subclass the base string classes as needed.  This framework uses an
   approach similar to the revised internationalized domain names in
   applications (IDNA) technology (RFC 5890, RFC 5891, RFC 5892, RFC
   5893, RFC 5894) and thus adheres to the high-level design goals
   described in RFC 4690, albeit for application technologies other than
   the Domain Name System (DNS).  This document obsoletes the previous
   framework, named Stringprep, as defined in RFC 3454.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   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
   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 Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  String Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  NameClass  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  Valid  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  Disallowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.3.  Unassigned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.4.  Directionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.5.  Case Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.6.  Normalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  FreeClass  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.1.  Valid  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.2.  Disallowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.3.  Unassigned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.4.  Directionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.5.  Case Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.6.  Normalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Use of PRECIS String Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Subclassing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Code Point Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Category Definitions Used to Calculate Derived Property
       Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  LetterDigits (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  Unstable (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.3.  IgnorableProperties (C)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.4.  IgnorableBlocks (D)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.5.  LDH (E)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.6.  Exceptions (F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.7.  BackwardCompatible (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.8.  JoinControl (H)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.9.  OldHangulJamo (I)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.10. Unassigned (J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.11. ASCII7 (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


     6.12. Controls (L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.13. PrecisIgnorableProperties (M)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.14. Spaces (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.15. Symbols (O)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.16. Punctuation (P)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.17. HasCompat (Q)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Calculation of the Derived Property  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  Code Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     9.1.  PRECIS Derived Property Value Registry . . . . . . . . . . 19
     9.2.  PRECIS Usage Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.1. General Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.2. Local Character Set Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.3. Visually Similar Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.4. Security of Passwords and Passphrases  . . . . . . . . . . 22
   11. Interoperability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Appendix A.  Codepoints 0x0000 - 0x10FFFF  . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     A.1.  Codepoints in Unicode Character Database (UCD) format  . . 26
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



























Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


1.  Introduction

   As described in [I-D.ietf-precis-problem-statement], many IETF
   protocols use the Stringprep [RFC3454] framework as the basis for
   preparing and comparing protocol strings that contain Unicode code
   points [UNICODE].  The Stringprep framework was defined during work
   on the original technology for internationalized domain names (IDNs),
   IDNA2003 [RFC3490], as a way to enable other protocols to use the
   same or similar method by defining a Stringprep profile to prepare
   and compare strings and identifiers in these protocols.  Nameprep
   [RFC3491] was such a profile for the IDN case.  Since then, issues
   were documented [RFC4690] related to the IDN and Nameprep cases.  The
   new IDN specifications, named IDNA2008 ([RFC5890], [RFC5891],
   [RFC5892], [RFC5893], [RFC5894]), do not use Stringprep and Nameprep
   anymore.  This migration away from Stringprep for internationalized
   domain names has prompted other "customers" of Stringprep to consider
   new approaches to the preparation and comparison of internationalized
   strings ("PRECIS"), as described in
   [I-D.ietf-precis-problem-statement].

   This document defines a technical framework for a post-stringprep
   approach to the preparation and comparison of internationalized
   strings in application protocols.  The framework is based on several
   principles:

   1.  Define a small set of base string classes appropriate for common
       application protocol constructs such as usernames and free-form
       strings.

   2.  Define each base string class in terms of Unicode code points and
       their properties, specifying whether each code point or character
       category is valid, disallowed, or unassigned.

   3.  Enable application protocols to subclass the base string classes,
       mainly to disallow particular code points that are currently
       disallowed in the relevant application protocol (e.g., characters
       with special or reserved meaning, such as "@" and "/" when used
       as separators within identifiers).

   4.  Leave various mapping operations (e.g., case preservation or
       lowercasing, Unicode normalization, right-to-left characters) as
       the responsibility of application protocols, as was done for
       IDNA2008 via [RFC5895].

   It is expected that this framework will yield the following benefits:






Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   o  Application protocols will be more version-agile with regard to
      the Unicode database.
   o  Implementers will be able to share code point tables and software
      code across application protocols, most likely by means of
      software libraries.
   o  End users will be able to acquire more accurate expectations about
      the code points that are acceptable in various contexts.  Given
      this more uniform set of string classes, it is also expected that
      copy/paste operations between software implementing different
      application protocols will be more predictable and coherent.

   Although this framework is similar to IDNA2008 and borrows some of
   the character categories defined in [RFC5892], it defines additional
   string classes and character categories to meet the needs of common
   application protocols.


2.  Terminology

   Many important terms used in this document are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-precis-problem-statement], [RFC6365], [RFC5890], and
   [UNICODE].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].


3.  String Classes

   IDNA2008 essentially defines a base string class of internationalized
   domain name, although it does not use the term "string class".  (This
   document does not define a string class for domain names, and
   application protocols are strongly encouraged to use IDNA2008 as the
   appropriate method to prepare domain names and hostnames.)

   We propose the following additional base string classes for use in
   application protocols:

   NameClass:  a sequence of letters, numbers, and symbols that is used
      to identify or address a network entity such as a user account, a
      venue (e.g., a chatroom), an information source (e.g., a data
      feed), or a collection of data (e.g., a file).







Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   FreeClass:  a sequence of letters, numbers, symbols, spaces, and
      other code points that is used for free-form strings, including
      passwords and passphrases as well as display elements such as a
      human-friendly nickname in a chatroom.

   The following subsections discuss these string classes in more
   detail, with reference to the dimensions described in Section 3 of
   [I-D.ietf-precis-problem-statement].

   Each string class is defined by the following behavioral rules:

   Valid:  defines which code points and character categories are
      treated as valid input to preparation of the string.

   Disallowed:  defines which code points and character categories are
      treated as disallowed during preparation of the string.

   Unassigned:  defines application behavior in the presence of code
      points that are unassigned, i.e. unknown for the version of
      Unicode the application is built upon.

   Directionality:  defines application behavior in the presence of code
      points that have directionality, in particular right-to-left code
      points as defined in the Unicode database (see [UAX9]).

   Casemapping:  defines if case mapping is used for this class (instead
      of case preservation), and how the mapping is done.

   Normalization:  defines which Unicode normalization form (D, KD, C,
      or KC) is to be applied (see [UAX15]).

   This document defines the valid, disallowed, and unassigned rules.
   Application protocols that use the PRECIS string classes MUST define
   the directionality, casemapping, and normalization rules, as further
   described under Section 9.2.

3.1.  NameClass

   Most application technologies need a special class of strings that
   can be used to refer to, include, or communicate things like
   usernames, file names, data feed names, and chatroom names.  We group
   such things into a bucket called "NameClass" having the following
   features.

3.1.1.  Valid






Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   o  Letters and numbers, i.e., the LetterDigits ("A") category first
      defined in [RFC5892] and listed here under Section 6.1.
   o  Code points in the range U+0021 through U+007E, i.e., the ASCII7
      ("K") rule defined under Section 6.11.  These code points are
      valid even if they would otherwise be disallowed according to the
      property-based rules specified in the next section.

3.1.2.  Disallowed

   o  Control characters, i.e., the Controls ("L") category defined
      under Section 6.12.
   o  Ignorable characters, i.e., the PrecisIgnorableProperties ("M")
      category defined under Section 6.13.
   o  Space characters, i.e., the Spaces ("N") category defined under
      Section 6.14.
   o  Symbol characters, i.e., the Symbols ("O") category defined under
      Section 6.15.
   o  Punctuation characters, i.e., the Punctuation ("P") category
      defined under Section 6.16.
   o  Any character that has a compatibility equivalent, i.e., the
      HasCompat ("Q") category defined under Section 6.17.  These code
      points are disallowed even if they would otherwise be valid
      according to the property-based rules specified in the previous
      section.

3.1.3.  Unassigned

   Any code points that are not yet assigned in the Unicode character
   set SHALL be considered Unassigned for purposes of the NameClass.

3.1.4.  Directionality

   The directionality rule MUST be specified by each application
   protocol that uses or subclasses the NameClass.

3.1.5.  Case Mapping

   The casemapping rule MUST be specified by each application protocol
   that uses or subclasses the NameClass.

3.1.6.  Normalization

   The normalization form MUST be specified by each application protocol
   that uses or subclasses the NameClass.

   However, in accordance with [RFC5198], normalization form C (NFC) is
   RECOMMENDED.




Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


3.2.  FreeClass

   Some application technologies need a special class of strings that
   can be used in a free-form way, e.g., as a passphrase in an
   authentication exchange (see [I-D.melnikov-precis-saslprepbis] or a
   nickname in a chatroom (see [I-D.saintandre-precis-nickname]).  We
   group such things into a bucket called "FreeClass" having the
   following features.

   NOTE: Consult Section 10.4 for relevant security considerations when
   strings conforming to the FreeClass, or a subclass thereof, are used
   as passwords or passphrases.

3.2.1.  Valid

   o  Letters and numbers, i.e., the LetterDigits ("A") category first
      defined in [RFC5892] and listed here under Section 6.1.
   o  Code points in the range U+0021 through U+007E, i.e., the ASCII7
      ("K") rule defined under Section 6.11.
   o  Any character that has a compatibility equivalent, i.e., the
      HasCompat ("Q") category defined under Section 6.17.
   o  Space characters, i.e., the Spaces ("N") category defined under
      Section 6.14.
   o  Symbol characters, i.e., the Symbols ("O") category defined under
      Section 6.15.
   o  Punctuation characters, i.e., the Punctuation ("P") category
      defined under Section 6.16.

3.2.2.  Disallowed

   o  Control characters, i.e., the Controls ("L") category defined
      under Section 6.12.
   o  Ignorable characters, i.e., the PrecisIgnorableProperties ("M")
      category defined under Section 6.13.

3.2.3.  Unassigned

   Any code points that are not yet assigned in the Unicode character
   set SHALL be considered Unassigned for purposes of the FreeClass.

3.2.4.  Directionality

   The directionality rule MUST be specified by each application
   protocol that uses or subclasses the FreeClass.







Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


3.2.5.  Case Mapping

   The casemapping rule MUST be specified by each application protocol
   that uses or subclasses the FreeClass.

   In general, case preservation is NOT RECOMMENDED for application
   protocols that perform case-insensitive comparison of
   internationalized strings; instead, application protocols SHOULD
   either (a) not preserve case but perform case-insensitive matching or
   (b) preserve case but perform case-sensitive comparison.

   In order to maximize entropy, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for application
   protocols to map uppercase and titlecase code points to their
   lowercase equivalents when strings conforming to the FreeClass, or a
   subclass thereof, are used in passwords or passphrases; instead, it
   is RECOMMENDED to preserve the case of all code points contained in
   such strings.

3.2.6.  Normalization

   The normalization form MUST be specified by each application protocol
   that uses or subclasses the FreeClass.

   However, in accordance with [RFC5198], normalization form C (NFC) is
   RECOMMENDED.


4.  Use of PRECIS String Classes

4.1.  Principles

   This document defines the valid, disallowed, and unassigned rules.
   Application protocols that use the PRECIS string classes MUST define
   the directionality, casemapping, and normalization rules.  Such
   definitions MUST at a minimum specify the following:

   Directionality:  Whether any instance of the class that contains a
      right-to-left code point is to be considered a right-to-left
      string, or whether some other rule is to be applied (e.g., the
      "Bidi Rule" from [RFC5893]).

   Casemapping:  Whether uppercase and titlecase code points are to be
      (a) preserved or (b) mapped to lowercase.








Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   Normalization:  Which Unicode normalization form (D, KD, C, or KC) is
      to be applied (see [UAX15] for background information); in
      accordance with [RFC5198], NFC is RECOMMENDED.

4.2.  Subclassing

   Application protocols are allowed to subclass the base string classes
   specified in this document.  As the word "subclass" implies, a
   subclass MUST NOT add as valid any code points or character
   categories that are disallowed by the base string class.  However, a
   subclass MAY do either of the following:

   1.  Exclude specific code points that are included in the base string
       class.
   2.  Exclude characters matching certain Unicode properties (e.g.,
       math symbols) that are included in the base string class.

4.3.  Registration

   Application protocols that use the PRECIS string classes MUST
   register with the IANA as described under Section 9.2.  This is
   especially important for protocols that subclass the PRECIS string
   classes.


5.  Code Point Properties

   In order to implement the string classes described above, this
   document does the following:

   1.  Reviews and classifies the collections of code points in the
       Unicode character set by examining various code point properties.

   2.  Defines an algorithm for determining a derived property value,
       which can vary depending on the string class being used by the
       relevant application protocol.

   This document is not intended to specify precisely how derived
   property values are to be applied in protocol strings.  That
   information should be defined in the protocol specification that uses
   or subclasses a base string class from this document.

   The value of the property is to be interpreted as follows.








Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   PROTOCOL VALID  Those code points that are allowed to be used in any
      PRECIS string class (NameClass and FreeClass).  Code points with
      this property value are permitted for general use in any string
      class.  The abbreviated term PVALID is used to refer to this value
      in the remainder of this document.

   SPECIFIC CLASS PROTOCOL VALID  Those code points that are allowed to
      be used in specific string classes.  Code points with this
      property value are permitted for use in specific string classes.
      In the remainder of this document, the abbreviated term *_PVAL is
      used, where * = (NAME | FREE), i.e., either FREE_PVAL or
      NAME_PVAL.

   CONTEXTUAL RULE REQUIRED  Some characteristics of the character, such
      as its being invisible in certain contexts or problematic in
      others, require that it not be used in labels unless specific
      other characters or properties are present.  The abbreviated term
      CONTEXT is used to refer to this value in the remainder of this
      document.  There are two subdivisions of CONTEXTUAL RULE REQUIRED,
      the first for Join_controls (called CONTEXTJ) and the second for
      other characters (called CONTEXTO).

   DISALLOWED  Those code points that must not be included in any string
      class.  Code points with this property value are not permitted in
      any string class.

   SPECIFIC CLASS DISALLOWED  Those code points that are not to be
      included in a specific string class.  Code points with this
      property value are not permitted in one of the string classes but
      might be permitted in others.  In the remainder of this document,
      the abbreviated term *_DIS is used, where * = (NAME | FREE), i.e.,
      either FREE_DIS or NAME_DIS.

   UNASSIGNED  Those code points that are not designated (i.e. are
      unassigned) in the Unicode Standard.

   The mechanisms described here allow determination of the value of the
   property for future versions of Unicode (including characters added
   after Unicode 5.2 or 6.1 depending on the category, since some
   categories in this document are reused from IDNA2008 and therefore
   were defined at the time of Unicode 5.2).  Changes in Unicode
   properties that do not affect the outcome of this process do not
   affect this framework.  For example, a character can have its Unicode
   General_Category value [UNICODE] change from So to Sm, or from Lo to
   Ll, without affecting the algorithm results.  Moreover, even if such
   changes were to result, the BackwardCompatible list (Section 6.7) can
   be adjusted to ensure the stability of the results.




Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   Some code points need to be allowed in exceptional circumstances, but
   should be excluded in all other cases; these rules are also described
   in other documents.  The most notable of these are the Join Control
   characters, U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER and U+200C ZERO WIDTH NON-
   JOINER.  Both of them have the derived property value CONTEXTJ.  A
   character with the derived property value CONTEXTJ or CONTEXTO
   (CONTEXTUAL RULE REQUIRED) is not to be used unless an appropriate
   rule has been established and the context of the character is
   consistent with that rule.  It is invalid to generate a string
   containing these characters unless such a contextual rule is found
   and satisfied.  PRECIS does not define its own contextual rules, but
   instead re-uses the contextual rules defined for IDNA2008; please see
   Appendix A of [RFC5892] for more information.


6.  Category Definitions Used to Calculate Derived Property Value

   The derived property obtains its value based on a two-step procedure:

   1.  Characters are placed in one or more character categories either
       (1) based on core properties defined by the Unicode Standard or
       (2) by treating the code point as an exception and addressing the
       code point as its code point value.  These categories are not
       mutually exclusive.

   2.  Set operations are used with these categories to determine the
       values for a property that is specific to a given string class.
       These operations are specified under Section 7.

   (NOTE: Unicode property names and property value names might have
   short abbreviations, such as "gc" for the General_Category property
   and "Ll" for the Lowercase_Letter property value of the gc property.)

   In the following specification of character categories, the operation
   that returns the value of a particular Unicode character property for
   a code point is designated by using the formal name of that property
   (from the Unicode PropertyAliases.txt [1]) followed by '(cp)' for
   "code point".  For example, the value of the General_Category
   property for a code point is indicated by General_Category(cp).

   The first ten categories (A-J) shown below were previously defined
   for IDNA2008 and are copied directly from [RFC5892].  Some of these
   categories are reused in PRECIS and some of them are not; however,
   the lettering of categories is retained to prevent overlap and to
   ease implementation of both IDNA2008 and PRECIS in a single software
   application.  The next seven categories (K-Q) are specific to PRECIS.





Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


6.1.  LetterDigits (A)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and copied here for use
   in PRECIS.

   A: General_Category(cp) is in {Ll, Lu, Lo, Nd, Lm, Mn, Mc}

   These rules identify characters commonly used in mnemonics and often
   informally described as "language characters".

   For more information, see section 4.5 of [UNICODE].

   The categories used in this rule are:
   o  Ll - Lowercase_Letter
   o  Lu - Uppercase_Letter
   o  Lo - Other_Letter
   o  Nd - Decimal_Number
   o  Lm - Modifier_Letter
   o  Mn - Nonspacing_Mark
   o  Mc - Spacing_Mark

6.2.  Unstable (B)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] but not used in PRECIS.

6.3.  IgnorableProperties (C)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] but not used in PRECIS.
   See the "PrecisIgnorableProperties (M)" category below for a more
   inclusive category used in PRECIS identifiers.

6.4.  IgnorableBlocks (D)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] but not used in PRECIS.

6.5.  LDH (E)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] but not used in PRECIS.
   See the "ASCII7 (K)" category below for a more inclusive category
   used in PRECIS identifiers.

6.6.  Exceptions (F)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and might be used in a
   future version of this specification.






Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   F: cp is in {00B7, 00DF, 0375, 03C2, 05F3, 05F4, 0640, 0660,
                0661, 0662, 0663, 0664, 0665, 0666, 0667, 0668,
                0669, 06F0, 06F1, 06F2, 06F3, 06F4, 06F5, 06F6,
                06F7, 06F8, 06F9, 06FD, 06FE, 07FA, 0F0B, 3007,
                302E, 302F, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3034, 3035, 303B,
                30FB}

   This category explicitly lists code points for which the category
   cannot be assigned using only the core property values that exist in
   the Unicode standard.  The values are according to the table below:

   PVALID -- Would otherwise have been DISALLOWED

   00DF; PVALID     # LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S
   03C2; PVALID     # GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA
   06FD; PVALID     # ARABIC SIGN SINDHI AMPERSAND
   06FE; PVALID     # ARABIC SIGN SINDHI POSTPOSITION MEN
   0F0B; PVALID     # TIBETAN MARK INTERSYLLABIC TSHEG
   3007; PVALID     # IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO

   CONTEXTO -- Would otherwise have been DISALLOWED

   00B7; CONTEXTO   # MIDDLE DOT
   0375; CONTEXTO   # GREEK LOWER NUMERAL SIGN (KERAIA)
   05F3; CONTEXTO   # HEBREW PUNCTUATION GERESH
   05F4; CONTEXTO   # HEBREW PUNCTUATION GERSHAYIM
   30FB; CONTEXTO   # KATAKANA MIDDLE DOT

   CONTEXTO -- Would otherwise have been PVALID

   0660; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO
   0661; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ONE
   0662; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT TWO
   0663; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT THREE
   0664; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FOUR
   0665; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FIVE
   0666; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT SIX
   0667; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT SEVEN
   0668; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT EIGHT
   0669; CONTEXTO   # ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT NINE
   06F0; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO
   06F1; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ONE
   06F2; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT TWO
   06F3; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT THREE
   06F4; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FOUR
   06F5; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT FIVE
   06F6; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT SIX
   06F7; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT SEVEN



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   06F8; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT EIGHT
   06F9; CONTEXTO   # EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT NINE

   DISALLOWED -- Would otherwise have been PVALID

   0640; DISALLOWED # ARABIC TATWEEL
   07FA; DISALLOWED # NKO LAJANYALAN
   302E; DISALLOWED # HANGUL SINGLE DOT TONE MARK
   302F; DISALLOWED # HANGUL DOUBLE DOT TONE MARK
   3031; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK
   3032; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK
   3033; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK UPPER HALF
   3034; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL KANA REPEAT WITH VOICED SOUND MARK
                      UPPER HA
   3035; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL KANA REPEAT MARK LOWER HALF
   303B; DISALLOWED # VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK

6.7.  BackwardCompatible (G)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and copied here for use
   in PRECIS.  Because of how the PRECIS string classes are defined,
   only changes that would result in code points being added to or
   removed from the LetterDigits ("A") category would result in
   backward-incompatible modifications to code point assignments.
   Therefore, management of this category is handled via the processes
   specified in [RFC5892].

   G: cp is in {}

   This category includes the code points for which property values in
   versions of Unicode after 5.2 have changed in such a way that the
   derived property value would no longer be PVALID or DISALLOWED.  If
   changes are made to future versions of Unicode so that code points
   might change property value from PVALID or DISALLOWED, then this
   table can be updated and keep special exception values so that the
   property values for code points stay stable.

6.8.  JoinControl (H)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and copied here for use
   in PRECIS.

   H: Join_Control(cp) = True

   This category consists of Join Control characters (i.e., they are not
   in LetterDigits (Section 6.1)) but are still required in strings
   under some circumstances.




Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


6.9.  OldHangulJamo (I)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and copied here for use
   in PRECIS.

   I: Hangul_Syllable_Type(cp) is in {L, V, T}

   This category consists of all conjoining Hangul Jamo (Leading Jamo,
   Vowel Jamo, and Trailing Jamo).

   Elimination of conjoining Hangul Jamos from the set of PVALID
   characters results in restricting the set of Korean PVALID characters
   just to preformed, modern Hangul syllable characters.  Old Hangul
   syllables, which must be spelled with sequences of conjoining Hangul
   Jamos, are not PVALID for string classes.

6.10.  Unassigned (J)

   NOTE: This category is defined in [RFC5892] and copied here for use
   in PRECIS.

   J: General_Category(cp) is in {Cn} and
      Noncharacter_Code_Point(cp) = False

   This category consists of code points in the Unicode character set
   that are not (yet) assigned.  It should be noted that Unicode
   distinguishes between 'unassigned code points' and 'unassigned
   characters'.  The unassigned code points are all but (Cn -
   Noncharacters), while the unassigned *characters* are all but (Cn +
   Cs).

6.11.  ASCII7 (K)

   This PRECIS-specific category exempts most characters in the ASCII-7
   range from other rules that might be applied during PRECIS
   processing, on the assumption that these code points are in such wide
   use that disallowing them would be counter-productive.

   K: cp is in {0021..007E}

6.12.  Controls (L)

   L: Control(cp) = True








Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


6.13.  PrecisIgnorableProperties (M)

   This PRECIS-specific category is used to group code points that are
   not recommended for use in PRECIS string classes.

   M: Default_Ignorable_Code_Point(cp) = True or
      Noncharacter_Code_Point(cp) = True

   The definition for Default_Ignorable_Code_Point can be found in the
   DerivedCoreProperties.txt [2] file, and at the time of Unicode 6.1 is
   as follows:

     Other_Default_Ignorable_Code_Point
   + Cf (Format characters)
   + Variation_Selector
   - White_Space
   - FFF9..FFFB (Annotation Characters)
   - 0600..0604, 06DD, 070F, 110BD (exceptional Cf characters
                                    that should be visible)

6.14.  Spaces (N)

   This PRECIS-specific category is used to group code points that are
   space characters.

   N: General_Category(cp) is in {Zs}

6.15.  Symbols (O)

   This PRECIS-specific category is used to group code points that are
   symbols.

   O: General_Category(cp) is in {Sm, Sc, Sk, So}

6.16.  Punctuation (P)

   This PRECIS-specific category is used to group code points that are
   punctuation characters.

   P: General_Category(cp) is in {Pc, Pd, Ps, Pe, Pi, Pf, Po}

6.17.  HasCompat (Q)

   This PRECIS-specific category is used to group code points that have
   compatibility equivalents as explained in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of
   [UNICODE].

   Q: toNFKC(cp) != cp



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   The toNFKC() operation returns the code point in normalization form
   KC.  For more information, see Section 5 of [UAX15].


7.  Calculation of the Derived Property

   Possible values of the derived property are:

   o  PVALID
   o  NAME_PVAL
   o  FREE_PVAL
   o  CONTEXTJ
   o  CONTEXTO
   o  DISALLOWED
   o  NAME_DIS
   o  FREE_DIS
   o  UNASSIGNED

   NOTE: In some instances, the value of the derived property calculated
   depends on the string class (e.g., if an identifier used in an
   application protocol is defined as using or subclassing the PRECIS
   NameClass, then a space character would be assigned to NAME_DIS).

   The algorithm to calculate the value of the derived property is as
   follows.  (NOTE: Use of the name of a rule (such as "Exception")
   implies the set of code points that the rule defines, whereas the
   same name as a function call (such as "Exception(cp)") implies the
   value that the code point has in the Exceptions table.)

   If .cp. .in. Exceptions Then Exceptions(cp);
   Else If .cp. .in. BackwardCompatible Then BackwardCompatible(cp);
   Else If .cp. .in. Unassigned Then UNASSIGNED;
   Else If .cp. .in. ASCII7 Then PVALID;
   Else If .cp. .in. JoinControl Then CONTEXTJ;
   Else If .cp. .in. PrecisIgnorableProperties Then DISALLOWED;
   Else If .cp. .in. Controls Then DISALLOWED;
   Else If .cp. .in. OldHangulJamo Then DISALLOWED;
   Else If .cp. .in. LetterDigits Then PVALID;
   Else If .cp. .in. Spaces Then NAME_DIS
                     or FREE_PVAL;
   Else If .cp. .in. Symbols Then NAME_DIS
                     or FREE_PVAL;
   Else If .cp. .in. Punctuation Then NAME_DIS
                     or FREE_PVAL;
   Else If .cp. .in. HasCompat Then NAME_DIS
                     or FREE_PVAL;
   Else DISALLOWED;




Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


8.  Code Points

   The Categories and Rules defined in Section 6 and Section 7 apply to
   all Unicode code points.  The table in Appendix A shows, for
   illustrative purposes, the consequences of the categories and
   classification rules, and the resulting property values.

   The list of code points that can be found in Appendix A is non-
   normative.  Instead, the rules defined by Section 6 and Section 7 are
   normative, and any tables are derived from the rules.


9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  PRECIS Derived Property Value Registry

   IANA is requested to create a PRECIS-specific registry with the
   Derived Properties for the versions of Unicode that are released
   after (and including) version 6.1.  The derived property value is to
   be calculated in cooperation with a designated expert [RFC5226]
   according to the specifications in Section 6 and Section 7, and not
   by copying the non-normative table found in Appendix A.

   If during this process (creation of the table of derived property
   values) followed by a designated expert review, either backward-
   incompatible changes to the table of derived properties are
   discovered, or otherwise problems arise during the creation of the
   table, that is to be flagged to the IESG.  Changes to the rules (as
   specified in Section 6 and Section 7) require IETF Review, as
   described in [RFC5226].

9.2.  PRECIS Usage Registry

   IANA is requested to create a registry of application protocols that
   use the base string classes.  The registry will include one entry for
   each use (e.g., if a protocol uses both the NameClass and the
   FreeClass then the specification for that protocol would submit two
   registrations).  In accordance with [RFC5226], the registration
   policy is "First Come First Served".

   The registration template is as follows:

   Application Protocol:  [the application protocol that is using or
      subclassing the PRECIS string class]







Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   Base Class:  [which base class is being used]
   Subclassing:  [whether the base class is being subclassed and, if so,
      where documentation of the subclassing can be found]
   Directionality:  [the behavioral rule for handling of right-to-left
      code points]
   Casemapping:  [the behavioral rule for handling of case]
   Normalization:  [which Unicode normalization form is applied]
   Specification:  [a pointer to relevant documentation, such as an RFC
      or Internet-Draft]


10.  Security Considerations

10.1.  General Issues

   The security of applications that use this framework can depend in
   part on the proper preparation and comparison of internationalized
   strings.  For example, such strings can be used to make
   authentication and authorization decisions, and the security of an
   application could be compromised if an entity providing a given
   string is connected to the wrong account or online resource based on
   different interpretations of the string.

   Specifications of application protocols that use this framework are
   encouraged to describe how internationalized strings are used in the
   protocol, including the security implications of any false positives
   and false negatives that might result from various comparison
   operations.  For some helpful guidelines, refer to
   [I-D.iab-identifier-comparison], [RFC5890], [UTR36], and [UTR39].

10.2.  Local Character Set Issues

   When systems use local character sets other than ASCII and Unicode,
   these specifications leave the problem of converting between the
   local character set and Unicode up to the application or local
   system.  If different applications (or different versions of one
   application) implement different rules for conversions among coded
   character sets, they could interpret the same name differently and
   contact different application servers or other network entities.
   This problem is not solved by security protocols, such as Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] and the Simple Authentication and
   Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422], that do not take local character
   sets into account.

10.3.  Visually Similar Characters

   Some characters are visually similar and thus can cause confusion
   among humans.  Such characters are often called "confusable



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   characters" or "confusables".

   The problem of confusable characters is not necessarily caused by the
   use of Unicode code points outside the US-ASCII range.  For example,
   in some presentations and to some individuals the string "ju1iet"
   (spelled with the Arabic numeral one as the third character) might
   appear to be the same as "juliet" (spelled with the lowercase version
   of the letter "L"), especially on casual visual inspection.  This
   phenomenon is sometimes called "typejacking".

   However, the problem is made more serious by introducing the full
   range of Unicode code points into protocol strings.  For example, the
   characters U+13DA U+13A2 U+13B5 U+13AC U+13A2 U+13AC U+13D2 from the
   Cherokee block look similar to the US-ASCII characters "STPETER" as
   they might look when presented in a "creative" font.

   In some examples of confusable characters, it is unlikely that the
   average human could tell the difference between the real string and
   the fake string.  (Indeed, there is no programmatic way to
   distinguish with full certainty which is the fake string and which is
   the real string; in some contexts, the string formed of Cherokee
   characters might be the real string and the string formed of US-ASCII
   characters might be the fake string.)  Because PRECIS-compliant
   strings can contain almost any properly encoded Unicode code point,
   it can be relatively easy to fake or mimic some strings in systems
   that use the PRECIS framework.  The fact that some strings are easily
   confused introduces security vulnerabilities of the kind that have
   also plagued the World Wide Web, specifically the phenomenon known as
   phishing.

   Despite the fact that some specific suggestions about identification
   and handling of confusable characters appear in the Unicode Security
   Considerations [UTR36], it is also true (as noted in [RFC5890]) that
   "there are no comprehensive technical solutions to the problems of
   confusable characters".  Because it is impossible to map visually
   similar characters without a great deal of context (such as knowing
   the fonts used), the PRECIS framework does nothing to map similar-
   looking characters together, nor does it prohibit some characters
   because they look like others.

   However, specifications for application protocols that use this
   framework MUST describe how confusable characters can be used to
   compromise the security of systems that use the protocol in question,
   and any protocol-specific suggestions for overcoming those threats.
   In particular, software implementations and service deployments that
   use PRECIS-based technologies are strongly encouraged to define and
   implement consistent policies regarding the registration, storage,
   and presentation of visually similar characters.  The following



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   recommendations are appropriate:

   1.  An application service SHOULD define a policy that specifies the
       scripts or blocks of characters that the service will allow to be
       registered (e.g., in an account name) or stored (e.g., in a file
       name).  Such a policy SHOULD be informed by the languages and
       scripts that are used to write registered account names; in
       particular, to reduce confusion, the service SHOULD forbid
       registration or storage of stings that contain characters from
       more than one script and to restrict registrations to characters
       drawn from a very small number of scripts (e.g., scripts that are
       well-understood by the administrators of the service, to improve
       manageability).

   2.  User-oriented application software SHOULD define a policy that
       specifies how internationalized strings will be presented to a
       human user.  Because every human user of such software has a
       preferred language or a small set of preferred languages, the
       software SHOULD gather that information either explicitly from
       the user or implicitly via the operating system of the user's
       device.  Furthermore, because most languages are typically
       represented by a single script or a small set of scripts, and
       because and most scripts are typically contained in one or more
       blocks of characters, the software SHOULD warn the user when
       presenting a string that mixes characters from more than one
       script or block, or that uses characters outside the normal range
       of the user's preferred language(s).  (Such a recommendation is
       not intended to discourage communication across different
       communities of language users; instead, it recognizes the
       existence of such communities and encourages due caution when
       presenting unfamiliar scripts or characters to human users.)

10.4.  Security of Passwords and Passphrases

   One goal of passwords and passphrases is to maximize the amount of
   entropy, for example by allowing a wide range of code points and by
   ensuring that secrets are not prepared in such a way that code points
   are compared aggressively.  Therefore, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for
   application protocols to subclass the FreeClass for use in passwords
   and passphrases in a way that removes entire categories (e.g., by
   disallowing symbols or punctuation).  Furthermore, it is NOT
   RECOMMENDED for application protocols to map uppercase and titlecase
   code points to their lowercase equivalents in such strings; instead,
   it is RECOMMENDED to preserve the case of all code points contained
   in such strings.

   That said, software implementers need to be aware that there exist
   tradeoffs between entropy and usability.  For example, allowing a



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   user to establish a password containing "uncommon" code points might
   make it difficult for the user to access an application when using an
   unfamiliar or constrained input device.

   Some application protocols use passwords and passphrases directly,
   whereas others reuse technologies that themselves process passwords
   (one example is the Simple Authentication and Security Layer
   [RFC4422]).  Moreover, passwords are often carried by a sequence of
   protocols with backends authentication systems or data storage
   systems such as RADIUS [RFC2865] and LDAP [RFC4510].  Developers of
   application protocols are encouraged to look into reusing these
   profiles instead of defining new ones, so that end-user expectations
   about passwords are consistent no matter which application protocol
   is used.


11.  Interoperability Considerations

   Although strings that are consumed in PRECIS-based application
   protocols are often encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629], the exact encoding
   is a matter for the using protocol, not the PRECIS framework.

   It is known that some existing systems are unable to support the full
   Unicode character set, or even any characters outside the US-ASCII
   range.  If two (or more) applications need to interoperate when
   exchanging data (e.g., for the purpose of authenticating a username
   or password), they will naturally need have in common at least one
   coded character set (as defined by [RFC6365]).  Establishing such a
   baseline is a matter for the using protocol, not the PRECIS
   framework.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5198]  Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
              Interchange", RFC 5198, March 2008.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              6.0", 2010,
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/>.






Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.iab-identifier-comparison]
              Thaler, D., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security
              Purposes", draft-iab-identifier-comparison-00 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-precis-problem-statement]
              Sullivan, A. and M. Blanchet, "Stringprep Revision Problem
              Statement", draft-ietf-precis-problem-statement-04 (work
              in progress), January 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Address Format",
              draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-00 (work in progress),
              November 2011.

   [I-D.melnikov-precis-saslprepbis]
              Melnikov, A. and P. Saint-Andre, "Username and Password
              Preparation Algorithms",
              draft-melnikov-precis-saslprepbis-00 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.saintandre-precis-nickname]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Preparation and Comparison of
              Nicknames", draft-saintandre-precis-nickname-00 (work in
              progress), March 2012.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC3454]  Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
              Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
              December 2002.

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC3491]  Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
              Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
              RFC 3491, March 2003.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.




Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and
              Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.

   [RFC4510]  Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): Technical Specification Road Map", RFC 4510,
              June 2006.

   [RFC4690]  Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review and
              Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names
              (IDNs)", RFC 4690, September 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, August 2010.

   [RFC5893]  Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5893, August 2010.

   [RFC5894]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
              Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.

   [RFC5895]  Resnick, P. and P. Hoffman, "Mapping Characters for
              Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
              2008", RFC 5895, September 2010.

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              September 2011.

   [UAX15]    The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
              Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2010,
              <http://unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


   [UAX9]     The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #9:
              Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm", September 2010,
              <http://unicode.org/reports/tr9/>.

   [UTR36]    The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #36:
              Unicode Security Considerations", August 2010,
              <http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.

   [UTR39]    The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #39:
              Unicode Security Mechanisms", August 2010,
              <http://unicode.org/reports/tr39/>.

URIs

   [1]  <http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/PropertyAliases.txt>

   [2]  <http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/DerivedCoreProperties.txt>


Appendix A.  Codepoints 0x0000 - 0x10FFFF

   To follow.

   If one applies the rules (Section 7) to the code points 0x0000 to
   0x10FFFF to Unicode 6.1, the result is as follows.

   NOTE: This list is non-normative, and only included for illustrative
   purposes.  Specifically, what is displayed in the third column is not
   necessarily the formal name of the code point (as defined in
   [UNICODE]).  There are differences, for example with regard to the
   code points that have the code point value as part of the name
   (example: CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-4E00) and the naming of Hangul
   syllables.  However, for many code points, what you see is the
   official name.

A.1.  Codepoints in Unicode Character Database (UCD) format

   In progress...

0000..001F  ; DISALLOWED           # <control>
0020        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # SPACE
0021..007E  ; PVALID               # EXCLAMATION MARK .. TILDE
007F..009F  ; DISALLOWED           # <control>
00A0..00A9  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # NO-BREAK SPACE .. COPYRIGHT SIGN
00AA        ; PVALID               # FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR
00AB..00AC  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # NO-BREAK SPACE .. NOT SIGN
00AD        ; DISALLOWED           # SOFT HYPHEN
00AE..00B6  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # REGISTERED SIGN .. PILCROW SIGN



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 26]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


00B7        ; CONTEXTO             # MIDDLE DOT
00B8..00BF  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # CEDILLA..INVERTED QUESTION IND
00C0..00D6  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET A W GRAV..LAT CAP O
00D7        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MULTIPLICATION SIGN
00D8..00F6  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET O W STROKE..LAT SM
00F7        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # DIVISION SIGN
00F8..0131  ; PVALID               # LAT SM LET O W STROKE..LAT SM LET
0132..0133  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LAT CAP LIG IJ..LAT SM LIB IJ
0134..013E  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET J W CIRCUM..LAT SM LET
013F..0140  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LAT CAP LET L W MID DOT..LAT SM LET
0141..0148  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET L W STROKE..LAT SM LET
0149        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LAT SM LET N PRECEDED BY APOSTROPHE
014A..017E  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET ENG..LAT SM LET Z W CA
017F        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S
0180..01C3  ; PVALID               # LAT SM LET B W STROKE..LAT LET RETR
01C4..01CC  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LAT CAP LET DZ W CARON..LATIN SM
01CD..01F0  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET A W CARON..LAT SM LET J
01F1..01F3  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # LAT CAP LET DZ..LAT SM LET DZ
01F4..02AF  ; PVALID               # LAT CAP LET G WITH ACUTE..LAT SM
02B0..02B8  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MOD LET SM H..MOD LET SM Y
02B9..02C1  ; PVALID               # MOD LET PRIME..MOD LET REV GLOT ST
02C2..02C5  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MOD LET L ARROW..MOD LET D ARROW
02C6..02D1  ; PVALID               # MOD LET CIRCUM ACC..MOD LET HALF TR
02D2..02EB  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MOD LET CENT R HALF RING..MOD LET Y
02EC        ; PVALID               # MODIFIER LETTER VOICING
02ED        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MODIFIER LETTER UNASPIRATED
02EE        ; PVALID               # MODIFIER LETTER DOUBLE APOSTROPHE
02EF..02FF  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MOD LET LOW D ARR..MOD LET LOW L AR
0300..0374  ; PVALID               # COMB GRAVE ACCENT..GREEK NUM SIGN
0375        ; CONTEXTO             # GREEK LOWER NUMERAL SIGN
0376..0377  ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET PAMPHYLIAN DIGAMMA..GR S
0378..0379  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
037A..037D  ; PVALID               # GR YPOGEGRAMMENI..GR SM REV DOT LUN
037E        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GREEK QUESTION MARK
037F..0383  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0384..0385  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GREEK TONOS..GREEK DIALYTIKA TONOS
0386        ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET ALPHA WITH TONOS
0387        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GREEK ANO TELEIA
0388..038A  ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET EPSILON W TONOS..GR CAP
038B        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
038C        ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET OMICRON WITH TONOS
038D        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
038E..03A1  ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET EPSILON W TONOS..GR CAP
03A2        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
03A3..03CF  ; PVALID               # GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA..GR CAP
03D0..03D2  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GR BETA SYMBOL..GR UPSILON W HOOK
03D3..03D4  ; PVALID               # GR UPSILON W ACUTE AND HOOK..GR UP
03D5..03D6  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GR PHI SYMBOL..GR PI SYMBOL



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 27]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


03D7..03EF  ; PVALID               # GR KAI SYMBOL..COPTIC SM LET DEI
03F0..03F2  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GR KAPPA SYMBOL..GR LUNATE SIGMA
03F3        ; PVALID               # GREEK LETTER YOT
03F4..03F6  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GR CAP THETA..GR REV LUNATE EPSILON
03F7..03F8  ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET SHO..GR SM LET SHO
03F9        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # GREEK CAPITAL LUNATE SIGMA SYMBOL
03FA..0481  ; PVALID               # GR CAP LET SAN..CYR SML LET KOPPA
0482        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # CYRILLIC THOUSANDS SIGN
0483..0487  ; PVALID               # COMB CYR TITLO..COMB CYRILLIC POK
0488..048A  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # COMB CYR HUNDRED THOUSANDS SIGN..C
048B..0527  ; PVALID               # CYR SM LET SHORT I WITH TAIL..CYR S
0528..0530  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0531..0556  ; PVALID               # ARM CAP LET AYB..ARM CAP LET FEH
0557..0558  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0559        ; PVALID               # ARM MOD LET LEFT HALF RING
055A..055F  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARM APOS..ARM ABBREV
0560        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0561..0586  ; PVALID               # ARM SM LET AYB..ARMENIAN SMALL LE
0587        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARM SM LIGATURE ECH YIWN
0588        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0589..058A  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARMENIAN FULL STOP..ARMENIAN HYPHEN
058B..058E  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
058F        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARMENIAN DRAM SIGN
0590        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0591..05BD  ; PVALID               # HEBR ACC ETNAHTA..HEBR PNT ME
05BE        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # HEBR PUNCT MAQAF
05BF        ; PVALID               # HEBR PNT RAFE
05C0        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # HEBR PUNCT PASEQ
05C1..05C2  ; PVALID               # HEBR PNT SHIN DOT..HEBR PNT SIN DOT
05C3        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # HEBR PUNCT SOF PASUQ
05C4..05C5  ; PVALID               # HEBR MARK UP DOT..HEBR MARK LOW DOT
05C6        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # HEBR PUNCT NUN HAFUKHA
05C7        ; PVALID               # HEBR PNT QAMATS QATAN
05C8..05CF  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
05D0..05EA  ; PVALID               # HEBR LET ALEF..HEBR LET TAV
05EB..05EF  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
05F0..05F2  ; PVALID               # HEBR LIG YIDDISH DOUBLE VAV..HEBR L
05F3..05F4  ; CONTEXTO             # HEBR PUNCT GERESH..HEBR PUNCTUATIO
05F5..05FF  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0600..0604  ; DISALLOWED           # ARABIC NUMBER SIGN..ARABIC SIGN SAM
0605        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0606..060F  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # AR-IND CUBE ROOT..ARABIC SIGN MISRA
0610..061A  ; PVALID               # ARABIC SIGN SALLALLAHOU ALAYHE ..AR
061B        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC SEMICOLON
061C..061D  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
061E..061F  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC TRIPLE DOT PUNCT MARK..ARABI
0620        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0621..063F  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET HAMZA..ARABIC LET FARSI



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 28]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


0640        ; DISALLOWED           # ARABIC TATWEEL
0641..065F  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET FEH..ARABIC WAVY HAMZA B
0660..0669  ; CONTEXTO             # AR-IND DIG ZERO..AR-IND DIG
066A..066D  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC PCT SIGN..ARABIC FIVE PNTED
066E..0674  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET DOTLESS BEH..ARABIC LET
0675..0678  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC LET HIGH HAMZA ALEF..ARABIC
0679..06D3  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET TTEH..ARABIC LET YEH BAR
06D4        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC FULL STOP
06D5..06DC  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET AE..ARABIC SM HIGH SEEN
06DD        ; DISALLOWED           # ARABIC END OF AYAH
06DE        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC START OF RUB EL HIZB
06DF..06E8  ; PVALID               # ARABIC SM HIGH ROUNDED ZERO..ARABI
06E9        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # ARABIC PLACE OF SAJDAH
06EA..06EF  ; PVALID               # ARABIC EMPTY CENTRE LOW STOP..ARABI
06F0..06F9  ; CONTEXTO             # EXT AR-IND DIG ZERO..EXT A
06FA..06FF  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET SHEEN W DOT BEL..ARABIC
0700..070D  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # SYR END OF PARA..SYR HARKLEAN AST
070E        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
070F        ; DISALLOWED           # SYR ABBR MARK
0710..07B1  ; PVALID               # SYR LET ALAPH..THAANA LET N
07B2..07BF  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
07C0..07F5  ; PVALID               # NKO DIG ZERO..NKO LOW TONE APOS
07F6..07FA  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # NKO SYMBOL OO DENNEN..NKO LAJANYA
07FB..07FF  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0800..082D  ; PVALID               # SAMAR LET ALAF..SAMAR MARK NEQUDA
082E..082F  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0830..083E  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # SAMAR PUNCT NEQUDAA..SAMAR PUN
083F        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0840..085B  ; PVALID               # MANDAIC LET HALQA..MANDAIC GEM
085C..085D  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
085E        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # MANDAIC PUNCTUATION
08A0..08AC  ; PVALID               # ARABIC LET BEH W SM V BEL..ARABIC
08AD..08E3  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
08E4..08FE  ; PVALID               # ARABIC CURLY FATHA..ARABIC DAMMA W
08FF        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0900..0963  ; PVALID               # DEVAN SIGN INV CANDRABINDU..DEVAN V
0964..0965  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # DEVAN DANDA..DEVAN DOUBLE DANDA
0966..096F  ; PVALID               # DEVAN DIG ZERO..DEVAN DIG NINE
0970        ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # DEVAN ABBR SIGN
0971..097F  ; PVALID               # DEVAN SIGN HIGH SPACING DOT..DEVAN
0980        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0981..0983  ; PVALID               # BENG SIGN CANDRABINDU..BENG SIGN V
0984        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
0985..098C  ; PVALID               # BENG LET A..BENG LET VOCALIC L
098D..098E  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
098F..0990  ; PVALID               # BENG LET E..BENG LET AI
0991..0992  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0993..09A8  ; PVALID               # BENG LET O..BENG LET NA



Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 29]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


09A9        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
09AA..09B0  ; PVALID               # BENG LET PA..BENG LET RA
09B1        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
09B2        ; PVALID               # BENG LET LA
09B3..09B5  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09B6..09B9  ; PVALID               # BENG LET SHA..BENG LET HA
09BA..09BB  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09BC..09C4  ; PVALID               # BENG SIGN NUKTA..BENG VOWEL SIGN VO
09C5..09C6  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09C7..09C8  ; PVALID               # BENG VOWEL SIGN E..BENG VOWEL SIGN
09C9..09CA  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09CB..09CE  ; PVALID               # BENG VOWEL SIGN O..BENG LET KHANDA
09CF..09D6  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09D7        ; PVALID               # BENG AU LENGTH MARK
09D8..09DB  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09DC..09DD  ; PVALID               # BENG LET RRA..BENG LET RHA
09DE        ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>
09DF..09E3  ; PVALID               # BENG LET YYA..BENG VOWEL SIG
09E4..09E5  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
09E6..09F1  ; PVALID               # BENG DIG ZERO..BENG LET RA W L
09F2..09F3  ; FREE_PVAL, NAME_DIS  # BENG RUPEE MARK..BENG RUPEE SIGN
09F4..09FB  ; DISALLOWED           # BENG CURR NUM ONE..BENG GANDA MARK
09FC..0A00  ; UNASSIGNED           # <reserved>..<reserved>
0A01..10FFFF; TBD!


Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the comments and contributions
   of the following individuals: David Black, Mark Davis, Alan DeKok,
   Martin Duerst, Patrik Faltstrom, Ted Hardie, Joe Hildebrand, Paul
   Hoffman, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Simon Josefsson, John Klensin, Alexey
   Melnikov, Yoav Nir, Mike Parker, Pete Resnick, Andrew Sullivan, Dave
   Thaler, and Yoshiro Yoneya.

   Some algorithms and textual descriptions have been borrowed from
   [RFC5892].  Some text regarding security has been borrowed from
   [RFC5890] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-6122bis].













Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 30]


Internet-Draft              PRECIS Framework                  March 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Peter Saint-Andre
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
   Denver, CO  80202
   USA

   Phone: +1-303-308-3282
   Email: psaintan@cisco.com


   Marc Blanchet
   Viagenie
   246 Aberdeen
   Quebec, QC  G1R 2E1
   Canada

   Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
   URI:   http://www.viagenie.ca/































Saint-Andre & Blanchet  Expires September 13, 2012             [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/