[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 RFC 4790
Network Working Group C. Newman
Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems
Expires: November 7, 2003 May 9, 2003
Internet Application Protocol Comparator Registry
draft-newman-i18n-comparator-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 November 7, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Many Internet application protocols include string-based lookup,
searching, or sorting operations. However the problem space for
searching and sorting international strings is large, not fully
explored, and is outside the area of expertise for the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF). Rather than attempt to solve such a
large problem, this specification creates an abstraction framework so
that application protocols can precisely identify a comparison
function and the repertoire of comparison functions can be extended
in the future.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Comparator Definition and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Comparator Name Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Comparator Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Application Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Initial Comparators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1 Octet Comparator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 ASCII Numeric Comparator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3 ASCII Casemap Comparator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4 Nameprep Comparator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5 Basic Comparator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Use by ACAP and Sieve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Comparator Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2 Comparator Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3 Octet Comparator Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4 ASCII Numeric Comparator Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.5 ASCII Casemap Comparator Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.6 Nameprep Comparator Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.7 Basic Comparator Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.8 Structure of Comparator Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.9 Example Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Guidelines for Expert Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 22
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
1. Introduction
The ACAP [10] specification introduced the concept of a comparator,
but failed to create an IANA registry. With the introduction of
stringprep [5] and the Unicode Collation Algorithm [7], it is now
time to create that registry and populate it with some initial values
appropriate for an international community. This specification
replaces and generalizes the definition of a comparator in ACAP and
creates a comparator registry.
1.1 Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for
use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [1].
The attribute syntax specifications use the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) [2] notation including the core rules defined in Appendix
A. This also inherits ABNF rules from Language Tags [4].
2. Comparator Definition and Purpose
A comparator is a named function which takes two arbitrary length
octet strings (encoded in UTF-8 [3] for comparators which operate on
characters) as input and can be used to perform one or more of three
basic comparison operations: equality test, substring match and
ordering test.
Comparators provide a multi-protocol abstraction layer for comparison
functions so the details of a particular comparison operation can be
specified by someone with appropriate expertise independent of the
application protocol that consumes that comparator. This is similar
to the way a charset [13] separates the details of octet to character
mapping from a protocol specification such as MIME [8] or the way
SASL [9] separates the details of an authentication mechanism from a
protocol specification such as ACAP [10].
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
Here a small diagram to help illustrate the value of this abstraction
layer:
+-----------------+
| Octet |
+-------------------+ +--| Comparator Spec |
| IMAP i18n SEARCH |--+ | +-----------------+
+-------------------+ | +-------------+ | +-----------------+
+--| Comparator |--+--| A stringprep |
+-------------------+ | | Registry | | | Comparator Spec |
| ACAP i18n SEARCH |--+ +-------------+ | +-----------------+
+-------------------+ | +-----------------+
| | locale-specific |
+--| Comparator Spec |
+-----------------+
Thus IMAP, ACAP and future application protocols with international
search capability simply specify how to interface to the comparator
registry instead of each protocol spec having to specify all the
comparators it supports.
One component of a comparator is a canonicalization function which
can be pre-applied to single strings and may enhance the performance
of subsequent comparison operations. Normally, this is an
implementation detail of comparators, but at times it may be useful
for an application protocol to expose comparator canonicalization
over protocol. Comparator canonicalization can range from an
identity mapping (e.g., the i;octet comparator) to a mapping which
makes the string unreadable to a human (e.g., the basic comparator).
3. Comparator Name Syntax
The comparator name itself is a single US-ASCII string beginning with
a letter and made up of letters, digits, or one of the following 4
symbols: "-", ";", "=" or ".". The name MUST NOT be longer than 254
characters.
comparator-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / ";" / "=" / "."
comparator-name = ALPHA *253comparator-char
The string a client uses to select a comparator MAY contain a
wildcard ("*") character which matches zero or more comparator-chars.
Wildcard characters MUST NOT be adjacent. Clients which support
disconnected operation SHOULD NOT use wildcards to select a
comparator, but clients which provide comparator operations only when
connected to the server MAY use wildcards. If the wildcard string
matches multiple comparators, the server SHOULD select the comparator
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
with the broadest scope (preferably international scope), the most
recent table versions and the greatest number of supported
operations. A single wildcard character ("*") refers to the
application protocol comparator behavior that would occur if no
explicit negotiation were used.
When used as a protocol element for ordering, the comparator name MAY
be prefixed by either "+" or "-" to explicitly specify an ordering
direction. As mentioned previously, "+" has no effect on the
ordering function, while "-" negates the result of the ordering
function. In general, comparator-order is used when a client
requests a comparator, and comparator-sel is used with the server
informs the client of the selected comparator.
comparator-wild = ("*" / (ALPHA ["*"])) *(comparator-char ["*"])
; MUST NOT exceed 255 characters total
comparator-sel = ["+" / "-"] comparator-name
comparator-order = ["+" / "-"] comparator-wild
While this specification makes no absolute requirements on the
structure of comparator names, naming consistency is important, so
the following initial guidelines are provided.
Comparator names with an international audience typically begin with
"i;". Comparator names intended for a particular language or locale
typically begin with a language tag [4] followed by a ";". After the
first ";" is normally the name of the general comparator algorithm
followed by a series of algorithm modifications separated by the "-"
delimiter. Parameterized modifications will use "=" to delimit the
parameter from the value. The version numbers of any lookup tables
used by the algorithm SHOULD be present as parameterized
modifications. This MAY be followed by a ";" and a name for a set of
customizations applied to the comparator algorithm.
Comparator names of the form *;vnd-domain.com;* are reserved for
vendor-specific comparators created by the owner of the domain name
following the "vnd-" prefix. Registration of such comparators (or
the name space as a whole) with intended use of "Vendor" is
encouraged when a public specification or open-source implementation
is available, but is not required.
4. Comparator Specification Requirements
A comparator specification MUST state which of the three basic
functions are supported (equality, substring, ordering) and how to
perform each of the supported functions on any two input
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
octet-strings including empty strings. Given a comparator with a
specific name, and any two fixed input strings, the result MUST be
the same. The comparator specification MUST state whether the
comparator operates on raw octets or on characters (in which case the
UTF-8 charset is presumed). Comparators MUST be transitive.
A comparator specification MUST describe the internal
canonicalization algorithm. This algorithm can be applied to
individual strings and the result strings can be stored to
potentially optimize future comparison operations. A comparator MAY
specify that the canonicalization algorithm is the identity function.
The output of the canonicalization algorithm MAY have no meaning to a
human.
Comparators which use more than one customizable lookup table in a
documented format MUST assign numbers to the tables they use. This
permits an application protocol command to access the tables used by
a server comparator.
o The equality function always returns "match" or "no-match" when
supplied valid input and MAY return "error" if the input strings
are not valid UTF-8 strings or violate other comparator
constraints.
o The substring matching function determines if the first string is
a substring of the second string. A comparator which supports
substring matching will automatically support the two special
cases of substring matching: prefix and suffix matching if those
special cases are supported by the application protocol. It
returns "match" or "no-match" when supplied valid input and
returns "error" when supplied invalid input.
o The ordering function determines how two octet strings are
ordered. It returns "-1" if the first string is listed before the
second string according to the comparator, "+1" if the second
string is listed before the first string, and "0" if the two
strings are equal. If the order of the two strings is reversed,
the result of the ordering function of the comparator MUST be
negated. In general, comparators SHOULD NOT return "0" unless the
two octet sequences are identical.
Since ordering is normally used to sort a list of items, "error"
is not a useful return value from the ordering function. Strings
with errors that prevent the sorting algorithm from functioning
correctly should sort to the end of the list. Thus if the first
string is invalid UTF-8 while the second string is valid, the
result will be "+1". If the second string is invalid UTF-8 while
the first string is valid, the result will be "-1". If the
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
comparator is character-based, and both strings are invalid UTF-8,
the result SHOULD match the result from the "i;octet" comparator.
When the comparator is used with a "+" prefix, the behavior is the
same as when used with no prefix. When the comparator is used
with a "-" prefix, results which would be "+1" are instead "-1"
and results which would be "-1" are instead "+1".
Unless otherwise specified by the comparator or application protocol,
a NULL string (as opposed to an empty string) is equal only to
another NULL string, a NULL string is not a substring of any other
string, and a NULL string sorts to a position after all non-NULL
strings, but before strings which generate errors.
Some application protocols will permit the use of multi-value
attributes with a comparator. This paragraph describes the rules
that apply unless otherwise specified by the comparator or
application protocol. The equality and substring comparator
algorithms will be iterated over each pair of single values from the
two inputs. If any combination produces an error, the result is an
error. Otherwise, if any combination produces a "match", the result
is a match. Otherwise the result is "no-match". For the ordering
function, the smallest ordinal octet string from the first set of
values is compared to the smallest ordinal octet string from the
second set of values.
Application protocols MAY return position information for substring
matches. If this is done, the position information MUST include both
the starting offset and the ending offset in the string. This is
important because more sophisticated comparators can match strings of
unequal length (for example, a pre-composed accented character will
match a decomposed accented character).
Comparator specifications intended for common use are expected to
reference standards from standards bodies with significant experience
dealing with the details of international character sets.
5. Application Protocol Requirements
An application protocol which offers searching, substring matching
and/or sorting and permits the use of characters outside the US-ASCII
charset needs to consider the following requirements and issues:
The protocol MUST provide a mechanism for the client to select the
comparator to use with equality matching, substring matching and
ordering.
The protocol MUST specify how comparisons behave in the absence of an
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
explicit comparator negotiation or when a comparator negotiation of
"*" is used. The protocol MAY specify that the default comparator
used in such circumstances is sensitive to server configuration.
The protocol SHOULD provide a way to list available comparators
matching a given wildcard pattern or patterns.
If the protocol provides positional information for the results of a
substring match, that positional information MUST fully specify the
substring in the result that matches independent of the length of the
search string. For example, returning both the starting and ending
offset of the match would suffice, as would the starting offset and a
length. Returning just the starting offset is not acceptable. This
rule is necessary because advanced comparators can treat strings of
different lengths as equal (for example, pre-composed and decomposed
accented characters).
If the protocol permits the use of comparators on stored character
data which is not encoded with the UTF-8 charset, then the protocol
specification has to describe relevant issues of the conversion.
Details to consider include how to handle unknown charsets, any
charsets which are mandatory-to-implement, any issues with byte-order
that might apply, and any transfer encodings which need to be
supported.
If the protocol provides a canonicalization function for strings,
then use of comparators MAY be appropriate for that function.
If the protocol supports disconnected clients, then a mechanism for
the client to precisely replicate the server's comparator algorithm
is likely desirable. Thus the protocol MAY wish to provide a command
to fetch lookup tables used by charset conversions and comparators.
The protocol specification should consider assigning protocol error
codes for the following circumstances:
o The client requests the use of a comparator by name or pattern,
but no implemented comparator matches that pattern.
o The client attempts to use a comparator for a function that is not
supported by that comparator. For example, attempting to use the
"i;ascii-numeric" comparator for a substring matching function.
o The client uses an equality or substring matching comparator and
the result is an error. It may be appropriate to distinguish
between the two input strings, particularly when one is supplied
by the client and one is stored by the server. It might also be
appropriate to distinguish the specific case of an invalid UTF-8
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
string.
If the protocol permits the use of a comparator with data structures
beyond those described in this specification (octet strings, NULL
string, array of octet strings), the protocol MUST describe the
default behavior for a comparator with that data structure.
6. Initial Comparators
This section describes an initial set of comparators for the
comparator registry.
6.1 Octet Comparator
The "i;octet" comparator is a simple and fast comparator intended for
use on binary octet strings rather than on character data. It never
returns an "error" result. It provides equality, substring and
ordering functions. The ordering algorithm is as follows:
1. If both strings are the empty string, return the result "0".
2. If the first string is empty and the second is not, return the
result "-1".
3. If the second string is empty and the first is not, return the
result "+1".
4. If both strings begin with the same octet value, remove the first
octet from both strings and repeat this algorithm from step 1.
5. If the unsigned value (0 to 255) of the first octet of the first
string is less than the unsigned value of the first octet of the
second string, then return "-1".
6. If this step is reached, return "+1".
This algorithm is roughly equivalent to the C library function memcmp
with appropriate length checks added.
The matching function returns "match" if the sorting algorithm would
return "0". Otherwise the matching function returns "no-match".
The substring function returns "match" if the first string is the
empty string, or if there exists a substring of the second string of
length equal to the length of the first string which would result in
a "match" result from the equality function. Otherwise the substring
function returns "no-match".
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
The associated canonicalization algorithm is the identity function.
6.2 ASCII Numeric Comparator
The "i;ascii-numeric" comparator is a simple comparator intended for
use with arbitrary sized decimal numbers stored as octet strings of
US-ASCII digits (0x30 to 0x39). It supports equality and ordering,
but does not support the substring function. The algorithm is as
follows:
1. If neither string begins with a digit, return "error" if
matching, or the result of the "i;octet" comparator for ordering.
2. If the first string begins with a digit and the second string
does not, return "error" if matching and "-1" for ordering.
3. If the second string begins with a digit and the first string
does not, return "error" if matching and "+1" for ordering.
4. Let "n" be the number of digits at the beginning of the first
string, and "m" be the number of digits at the beginning of the
second string.
5. If n is equal to m, return the result of the "i;octet"
comparator.
6. If n is greater than m, prepend a string of "n - m" zeros to the
second string and return the result of the "i;octet" comparator.
7. If m is greater than n, prepend a string of "m - n" zeros to the
first string and return the result of the "i;octet" comparator.
The associated canonicalization algorithm is to truncate the input
string at the first non-digit character.
6.3 ASCII Casemap Comparator
The "en;ascii-casemap" comparator is a simple comparator intended for
use with English language text in pure US-ASCII. It provides
equality, substring and ordering functions. The algorithm first
applies a canonicalization algorithm to both input strings which
subtracts 32 (0x20) from all octet values between 97 (0x61) and 122
(0x7A) inclusive. The result of the comparator is then the same as
the result of the "i;octet" comparator for the canonicalized strings.
Care should be taken when using OS-supplied functions to implement
this comparator as this is not locale sensitive, but functions such
as strcasecmp and toupper can be locale sensitive.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
For historical reasons, in the context of ACAP and Sieve, the name
"i;ascii-casemap" is a synonym for this comparator.
6.4 Nameprep Comparator
The "i;nameprep-v=1-uv=3.2" comparator is an implementation of the
nameprep [6] specification based on normalization tables from Unicode
version 3.2. This comparator applies the nameprep canoncialization
function to both input strings and then returns the result of the
i;octet comparator on the canonicalized strings. While this
comparator offers all three functions, the ordering function it
provides is inadequate for use by the majority of the world.
Version number 1 is applied to nameprep as specified in RFC 3491. If
the nameprep specification is revised without any changes that would
produce different results when given the same pair of input octet
strings, then the version number will remain unchanged.
The table numbers for tables used by nameprep are as follows:
+--------------+-----------------------+
| Table Number | Table Name |
+--------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | UnicodeData-3.2.0.txt |
| 2 | Table B.1 |
| 3 | Table B.2 |
| 4 | Table C.1.2 |
| 5 | Table C.2.2 |
| 6 | Table C.3 |
| 7 | Table C.4 |
| 8 | Table C.5 |
| 9 | Table C.6 |
| 10 | Table C.7 |
| 11 | Table C.8 |
| 12 | Table C.9 |
+--------------+-----------------------+
6.5 Basic Comparator
The basic comparator is intended to provide tolerable results for a
number of languages for all three functions (equality, substring and
ordering) so it is suitable as a mandatory-to-implement comparator
for protocols which include ordering support. The ordering function
of the basic comparator is the Unicode Collation Algorithm [7]
version 9 (UCAv9).
The equality and substring functions are created as described in
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
UCAv9 section 8. While that section is informative to UCAv9, it is
normative to this comparator specification.
This comparator is based on Unicode version 3.2, with the following
tables relevant:
1. For the normalization step, UnicodeData-3.2.0.txt [15] is used.
Column 5 is used to determine the canonical decomposition, while
column 3 contains the canonical combining classes necessary to
attain canonical order.
2. The table of characters which require a logical order exception
is a subset of the table in PropList-3.2.0.txt [16] and is
included here:
0E40..0E44 ; Logical_Order_Exception
# Lo [5] THAI CHARACTER SARA E..THAI CHARACTER SARA AI MAIMALAI
0EC0..0EC4 ; Logical_Order_Exception
# Lo [5] LAO VOWEL SIGN E..LAO VOWEL SIGN AI
# Total code points: 10
3. The table used to translate normalized code points to a sort key
is allkeys-3.1.1.txt [17].
UCAv9 includes a number of configurable parameters and steps labelled
as potentially optional. The following list summarizes the defaults
used by this comparator:
o The logical order exception step is mandatory by default to
support the largest number of languages.
o Steps 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 are mandatory as the repertoire of the basic
comparator is intended to be large.
o The second level in the sort key is evaluated forwards by default.
o The variable weighting uses the "non-ignorable" option by default.
o The semi-stable option is not used by default.
o Support for exactly three levels of collation is the default
behavior.
o No preprocessing step is used by the basic comparator prior to
applying the UCAv9 algorithm. Note that an application protocol
specification MAY require pre-processing prior to the use of any
comparators.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
o The equality and substring algorithms exclude differences at level
2 and 3 by default (thus it is case-insensitive and ignores
accentual distinctions.
o The equality and substring algorithms use the "Whole Characters
Only" feature described in UCAv9 section 8 by default.
The exact comparator name with these defaults is
"i;basic-uca=3.1.1-uv=3.2". When a specification states that the
basic comparator is mandatory-to-implement, only this specific name
is mandatory-to-implement.
In order to allow modification of the optional behaviors, the
following ABNF is used for variations of the basic comparator:
basic-comparator = ("i" / Language-Tag) ";basic" basic-modifiers
"-uca=3.1.1-uv=3.2"
[";custom=" 1*comparator-char ]
basic-modifiers = ["-2backwards"]
["-blanked" / "-shifted" / "-shift-trimmed"]
["-semi-stable"]
["-quatlu"]
["-match=accent" / "-match=case"]
If multiple modifiers appear, they MUST appear in the order described
above. The modifiers have the following meanings:
2backwards When this modifier is selected, the order of the
second level sort keys is reversed. This is useful
for French customizations.
blanked Use the "blanked" variable weighting option described
in UCAv9 section 3.2.2 rather than the default
"non-ignorable".
shifted Use the "shifted" variable weighting option described
in UCAv9 section 3.2.2. rather than the default
"non-ignorable".
shift-trimmed Use the "shift-trimmed" variable weighting option
described in UCAv9 section 3.2.2. rather than the
default "non-ignorable".
semi-stable Use the "semi-stable" option. This involves appending
the input string to the end of the computed sort keys
so that only two identical strings will produce a
result of "0" from the order function.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
quatlu Use the 4th level weight from the allkeys file for the
ordering function.
match=accent Both the first and second levels of the sort keys are
considered relevant to the equality and substring
operations (rather than the default of first level
only). This makes the matching functions sensitive to
accentual distinctions.
match=case The first three levels of sort keys are considered
relevant to the equality and substring operations.
This makes the matching functions sensitive to both
case and accentual distinctions.
The canonicalization algorithm associated with this comparator is the
output of step 3 of the UCAv9 algorithm (described in section 4.3 of
the UCA specification). This canonicalization is not suitable for
human consumption.
Finally, the UCAv9 algorithm permits the "allkeys" table to be
customized. People who make quality customizations are encouraged to
register those customizations using the comparator registry.
Customization names beginning with "x" are reserved for experimental
use, are treated as "Limited use" and MUST NOT match wildcards if any
registered comparator is available that does match.
7. Use by ACAP and Sieve
Both ACAP [10] and Sieve [14] are standards track specifications
which used comparators prior to the creation of this specification
and registry. Those standards do not meet all the application
protocol requirements described in Section 5. For backwards
compatibility, those protocols use the "i;ascii-casemap" instead of
"en;ascii-casemap".
8. IANA Considerations
8.1 Comparator Registration Procedure
IANA will create a mailing list comparator@iana.org which can be used
for public discussion of comparator proposals prior to registration.
Use of the mailing list is encouraged but not required. The actual
registration procedure will not begin until the completed
registration template is sent to iana@iana.org. The IESG will
appoint a designated expert who will monitor the comparator@iana.org
mailing list and review registrations forwarded from IANA. The
designated expert is expected to tell IANA and the submitter of the
registration within two weeks whether the registration is approved,
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
approved with minor changes, or rejected with cause. When a
registration is rejected with cause, it can be re-submitted if the
concerns listed in the cause are addressed. Decisions made by the
designated expert can be appealed to the IESG and subsequently follow
the normal appeals procedure for IESG decisions.
Comparator registrations in a standards track, BCP or IESG-approved
experimental RFC are owned by the IESG and changes to the
registration follow normal procedures for updating such documents.
Comparator registrations in other RFCs are owned by the RFC
author(s). Other comparator registrations are owned by the
individual(s) listed in the contact field of the registration and
IANA will preserve this information. Changes to a registration MUST
be approved by the owner. In the event the owner can't be contacted
for a period of one month and a change is deemed necessary, the IESG
MAY re-assign ownership to an appropriate party.
8.2 Comparator Registration Template
Comparator Name: {see comparator-wild syntax (Section 3)}
Published Specification(s):
Supported Functions: {one or more of "equality", "substring" and
"order"}
Scope: {"i18n", "Local", "Other"}
Intended Use: {"Common", "Limited", "Vendor", "Deprecated"}
Person and email address to contact for further information:
8.3 Octet Comparator Registration
Comparator Name: i;octet
Published Specification: RFC XXXX Section 6.1
Supported Functions: equality, substring, order
Scope: Other
Intended Use: Common
Person and email address to contact for further information:
See the "Author's Address" section near the end of this
specification.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
8.4 ASCII Numeric Comparator Registration
Comparator Name: i;ascii-numeric
Published Specification: RFC XXXX Section 6.2
Supported Functions: equality, order
Scope: Other
Intended Use: Limited
Person and email address to contact for further information:
See the "Author's Address" section near the end of this
specification.
8.5 ASCII Casemap Comparator Registration
Comparator Name: en;ascii-casemap
Published Specification: RFC XXXX Section 6.3
Supported Functions: equality, substring, order
Scope: Local
Intended Use: Deprecated
Person and email address to contact for further information:
See the "Author's Address" section near the end of this
specification.
8.6 Nameprep Comparator Registration
Comparator Name: i;nameprep-v=1-uv=3.2
Published Specification: RFC XXXX Section 6.4
Supported Functions: equality, substring, order
Scope: i18n
Intended Use: Common
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
See the "Author's Address" section near the end of this
specification.
8.7 Basic Comparator Registration
Comparator Name: i;basic-*uca=3.1.1-uv=3.2*
Published Specification: RFC XXXX Section 6.5
Supported Functions: equality, substring, order
Scope: i18n
Intended Use: Common
Person and email address to contact for further information:
See the "Author's Address" section near the end of this
specification.
8.8 Structure of Comparator Registry
The comparator registry itself is divided into four sections. The
first section is for comparators intended for common use. This
section is intended for comparator registrations published in IESG
approved RFCs or for locally scoped comparators from the primary
standards body for that locale. The designated expert is encouraged
to reject comparator registrations with an intended use of "common"
if the expert believes it should be "limited", as it is desirable to
keep the number of "common" registrations small and high quality.
The second section is reserved for limited use comparators. The
third section is reserved for registered vendor specific comparators.
The final section is reserved for deprecated comparators.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
8.9 Example Initial Registry
The following is an example of how IANA might structure the initial
registry:
Comparator Functions Scope Reference
---------- --------- ----- ---------
Common Use Comparators:
i;octet e, s, o Other [RFC XXXX]
i;nameprep-v=1-uv=3.2 e, s, o i18n [RFC XXXX]
i;basic-*uca=3.1.1-uv=3.2* e, s, o i18n [RFC XXXX]
en;ascii-casemap e, s, o Local [RFC XXXX]
Limited Use Comparators:
i;ascii-numeric e, o Other [RFC XXXX]
Vendor Comparators:
Deprecated Comparators:
References
----------
[RFC XXXX] Newman, C., "Internet Application Protocol Comparator
Registry", RFC XXXX, Sun Microsystems, May 2003.
9. Guidelines for Expert Reviewer
The expert reviewer appointed by the IESG has fairly broad latitude
for this registry. While a number of comparators are expected
(particularly customizations of the basic comparator for localized
use), an explosion of comparators (particularly common use
comparators) is not desirable for widespread interoperability.
However, it is important for the expert reviewer to provide cause
when rejecting a registration, and when possible to describe
corrective action to permit the registration to proceed. The
following table includes some example reasons to reject a
registration with cause:
o The registration has intended use of "common", but there is no
evidence the comparator will be widely deployed so it should be
listed as "limited".
o The registration has intended use of "common", but is redundant
with the functionality of a previously registered "common"
comparator.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
o The comparator name fails to precisely identify the version
numbers of relevant tables to use.
o The registration fails to meet one of the "MUST" requirements in
Section 4.
o The comparator name fails to meet the syntax in Section 3.
o The comparator specification referenced in the registration is
vague or has optional features without a clear behavior specified.
o The referenced specification does not adequately address security
considerations specific to that comparator.
10. Security Considerations
Comparators will normally be used with UTF-8 strings. Thus the
security considerations for UTF-8 [3] and stringprep [5] also apply
and are normative to this specification.
11. Open Issues
1. Should we permit non-ASCII characters in the comparator name?
The benefit of allowing non-ASCII characters in the comparator
name is it would make presenting comparators to an end-user
simple, particularly if comparator names were structured to
include a user-friendly name as part of the conventional
structure. However, because there are other solutions to the
problem of user friendly selection of a comparator which would
add less complexity to the common case, the author has errored on
the side of simplicity. As long as the set of common use
comparators (excluding versions) is relatively small, user
friendly names can be part of the client (ideally admin
configuration for the client). If the registry becomes large,
then a lookup service could be used to translate a comparator
name into a user-friendly name.
2. Is any Nameprep processing appropriate for the basic comparator?
Because a result of "0" from an ordering algorithm is
undesirable, much of the nameprep processing is inappropriate.
Furthermore, a result of "error" which is important for nameprep
is generally inappropriate as an internal result in an ordering
algorithm since it makes the results less intuitive. The sort
key table also eliminates most problematic characters from
consideration if the appropriate comparator modifier is used.
Finally, exact compatibility with the Unicode Collation Algorithm
is deemed desirable by the author, as even the smallest variation
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
may require implementation of largely duplicate code. However,
this decision is outside my expertise, so I welcome alternate
viewpoints.
3. The ICU implementation of the UCA algorithm includes additional
algorithmic customizations such as the ability to be
case-sensitive while at the same time being insensitive to
accents. Should these customizations be added to this
specification?
4. Should a format for customization data for the basic comparator
be defined so that disconnected clients might have the option of
downloading that information?
Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[3] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
2279, January 1998.
[4] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", BCP
47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
[5] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of Internationalized
Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454, December 2002.
[6] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003.
[7] Davis, M. and K. Whistler, "Unicode Collation Algorithm version
9", July 2002, <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/
tr10-9.html>.
Informative References
[8] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[9] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997.
[10] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application Configuration
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
[11] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
1998.
[12] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001.
[13] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
[14] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", RFC 3028,
January 2001.
URIs
[15] <http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.2-Update/
UnicodeData-3.2.0.txt>
[16] <http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.2-Update/PropList-3.2.0.txt>
[17] <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/allkeys-3.1.1.txt>
Author's Address
Chris Newman
Sun Microsystems
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790
US
EMail: chris.newman@sun.com
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Comparator Registry May 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newman Expires November 7, 2003 [Page 23]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/