[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [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: March 17, 2007 M. Duerst
AGU
A. Gulbrandsen
Oryx
September 13, 2006
Internet Application Protocol Collation Registry
draft-newman-i18n-comparator-14.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 March 17, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Collation Definition and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Some Other Terms Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Sort Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Collation Identifier Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Basic Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Wildcards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Ordering Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Naming Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Collation Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Collation/Server Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Operations Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Substring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Sort Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Use of Lookup Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Application Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Wildcards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Disconnected Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.7. Octet Collation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Use by Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Collation Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Collation Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Collation Registration Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.2. The collation Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.3. The identifier Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.4. The title Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.5. The operations Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.6. The specification Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
7.2.7. The submitter Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.8. The owner Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.9. The version Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2.10. The variable Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. Structure of Collation Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. Example Initial Registry Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Guidelines for Expert Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Initial Collations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. ASCII Numeric Collation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1.1. ASCII Numeric Collation Description . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1.2. ASCII Numeric Collation Registration . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. ASCII Casemap Collation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2.1. ASCII Casemap Collation Description . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2.2. ASCII Casemap Collation Registration . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3. Octet Collation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3.1. Octet Collation Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3.2. Octet Collation Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.1. Changes From -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.2. Changes From -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.3. Changes From -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.4. Changes From -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14.5. Changes From -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14.6. Changes From -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.7. Changes From -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.8. Changes From -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.9. Changes From -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.10. Changes From -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.11. Changes From -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.12. Changes From -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14.13. Changes From -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
1. Introduction
The ACAP [11] specification introduced the concept of a comparator
(which we call collation in this document), but failed to create an
IANA registry. With the introduction of stringprep [6] 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 collation
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 [5].
2. Collation Definition and Purpose
2.1. Definition
A collation is a named function which takes two arbitrary length
strings as input and can be used to perform one or more of three
basic comparison operations: equality test, substring match, and
ordering test.
2.2. Purpose
Collations are an abstraction for comparison functions so that these
comparison functions can be used in multiple protocols. The details
of a particular comparison operation can be specified by someone with
appropriate expertise independent of the application protocols that
use that collation. This is similar to the way a charset [13]
separates the details of octet to character mapping from a protocol
specification such as MIME [9] or the way SASL [10] separates the
details of an authentication mechanism from a protocol specification
such as ACAP [11].
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
Here is a small diagram to help illustrate the value of this
abstraction:
+-------------------+ +-----------------+
| IMAP i18n SEARCH |--+ | Basic |
+-------------------+ | +--| Collation Spec |
| | +-----------------+
+-------------------+ | +-------------+ | +-----------------+
| ACAP i18n SEARCH |--+--| Collation |--+--| A stringprep |
+-------------------+ | | Registry | | | Collation Spec |
| +-------------+ | +-----------------+
+-------------------+ | | +-----------------+
| ...other protocol |--+ | | locale-specific |
+-------------------+ +--| Collation Spec |
+-----------------+
Thus IMAP, ACAP and future application protocols with international
search capability simply specify how to interface to the collation
registry instead of each protocol specification having to specify all
the collations it supports.
2.3. Some Other Terms Used in this Document
The terms client, server and protocol are used in somewhat unusual
senses.
Client means a user, or a program acting directly on behalf of a
user. This may be an mail reader acting as an IMAP client, or it may
be an interactive shell where the user can type protocol commands/
requests directly, or it may be a script or program written by the
user.
Server means a program that performs services requested by the
client. This may be a traditional server such as an HTTP server, or
it may be a Sieve [14] interpreter running a Sieve script written by
a user. A server needs to use the operations provided by collations
in order to fulfill the client's requests.
The protocol describes how the client tells the server what it wants
done, and (if applicable) how the server tells the client about the
results. IMAP is a protocol by this definition, and so is the Sieve
language.
2.4. Sort Keys
One component of a collation is a transformation which turns a string
into a sort key, which is then used while sorting.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
The transformation can range from an identity mapping (e.g., the
i;octet collation Section 9.3) to a mapping which makes the string
unreadable to a human.
This is an implementation detail of collations or servers. A
protocol SHOULD NOT expose it to clients, since some collations leave
the sort key's format up to the implementation, and current
conformant implementations are known to use different formats.
3. Collation Identifier Syntax
3.1. Basic Syntax
The collation identifier itself is a single US-ASCII string. The
identifier MUST NOT be longer than 254 characters, and obeys the
following grammar:
collation-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / ";" / "=" / "."
collation-id = collation-prefix ";" collation-core-name
*collation-arg
collation-scope = Language-tag / "vnd-" hostname
collation-core-name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )
collation-arg = ";" ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT ) "="
1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "." )
vendor-tag = "vnd-" hostname
There is a special identifier called "default". For protocols which
have a default collation, "default" refers to that collation. For
other protocols, the identifier "default" MUST match no collations,
and servers SHOULD treat it in the same way as they treat nonexistent
collations.
3.2. Wildcards
The string a client uses to select a collation MAY contain one or
more wildcard ("*") characters which match zero or more collation-
chars. Wildcard characters MUST NOT be adjacent. If the wildcard
string matches multiple collations, the server SHOULD attempt to
select a widely useful collation in preference to a narrowly useful
one.
collation-wild = ("*" / (ALPHA ["*"])) *(collation-char ["*"])
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
; MUST NOT exceed 254 characters total
3.3. Ordering Direction
When used as a protocol element for ordering, the collation
identifier MAY be prefixed by either "+" or "-" to explicitly specify
an ordering direction. "+" has no effect on the ordering operation,
while "-" inverts the result of the ordering operation. In general,
collation-order is used when a client requests a collation, and
collation-selected is used when the server informs the client of the
selected collation.
collation-selected = ["+" / "-"] collation-id
collation-order = ["+" / "-"] collation-wild
3.4. URIs
Some protocols are designed to use URIs [4] to refer to collations
rather than simple tokens. A special section of the IANA URL space
is reserved for such usage. The "collation-uri" form is used to
refer to a specific named collation (the collation registration may
not actually be present). The "collation-auri" form is an abstract
name for an ordering, a collation pattern or a vendor private
collator.
collation-uri = "http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/"
collation-id ".xml"
collation-auri = ( "http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/"
collation-order ".xml" ) / other-uri
other-uri = <absoluteURI>
; excluding the IANA collation namespace.
3.5. Naming Guidelines
While this specification makes no absolute requirements on the
structure of collation identifiers, naming consistency is important,
so the following initial guidelines are provided.
Collation identifiers with an international audience typically begin
with "i;". Collation identifiers intended for a particular language
or locale typically begin with a language tag [5] followed by a ";".
After the first ";" is normally the name of the general collation
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
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
lookup tables used by the algorithm SHOULD be present as
parameterized modifications.
Collation identifiers of the form *;vnd-domain.com;* are reserved for
vendor-specific collations created by the owner of the domain name
following the "vnd-" prefix (e.g. vnd-example.com for the vendor
example.com). Registration of such collations (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. Collation Specification Requirements
4.1. Collation/Server Interface
The collation itself defines what it operates on. Most collations
are expected to operate on character strings. The i;octet
(Section 9.3) collation operates on octet strings. The i;ascii-
numeric (Section 9.1) operation operates on numbers.
This specification defines the collation interface in terms of octet
strings. However, implementations may choose to use character
strings instead. Such implementations may not be able to implement
e.g. i;octet. Since i;octet is not currently mandatory to implement
for any protocol, this should not be a problem.
4.2. Operations Supported
A collation specification MUST state which of the three basic
operations are supported (equality, substring, ordering) and how to
perform each of the supported operations on any two input character
strings including empty strings. Collations must be deterministic,
i.e. given a collation with a specific identifier, and any two fixed
input strings, the result MUST be the same for the same operation.
In general, collation operations should behave as their names
suggest. While a collation may be new, the operations are not, so
the new collation's operations should be similar to those of older
collations. For example, a date/time collation should not provide a
"substring" operation that would morph IMAP substring SEARCH into
e.g. a date-range search.
A non-obvious consequence of the rules for each collation operation
is that for any single collation, either none or all of the
operations can return "undefined". For example, it is not possible
to have an equality operation that never returns "undefined" and a
substring operation that occasionally does.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
4.2.1. Validity
The validity test takes one string as argument. It returns valid if
its input string is valid input to collation's other operations, and
invalid if not. (In other words, a string is valid if it is equal to
itself according to the collation's equality operation.)
The validity test is provided by all collations. It MUST NOT be
listed separately in the collation registration.
4.2.2. Equality
The equality test always returns "match" or "no-match" when supplied
valid input, and MAY return "undefined" if one or both input strings
are not valid.
The equality test MUST be reflexive and symmetric. For valid input,
it MUST be transitive.
If a collation provides either a substring or an ordering test, it
MUST also provide an equality test. The substring and/or ordering
tests MUST be consistent with the equality test.
The return values of the equality test are called "match", "no-match"
and "undefined" in this document.
4.2.3. Substring
The substring matching operation determines if the first string is a
substring of the second string, i.e. if one or more substrings of the
second string is equal to the first, as defined by the collation's
equality operation.
A collation which supports substring matching will automatically
support 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 "undefined" when supplied invalid input.
Application protocols MAY return position information for substring
matches. If this is done, the position information SHOULD include
both the starting offset and the ending offset for each match. This
is important because more sophisticated collations can match strings
of unequal length (for example, a pre-composed accented character can
match a decomposed accented character). In general, overlapping
matches SHOULD be reported (as when "ana" occurs twice within
"banana") although there are cases where a collation may decide not
to. For example, in a collation which treats all whitespace
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
sequences as identical, the substring operation could be defined such
that " 1 " (SP "1" SP) is reported just once within " 1 " (SP SP
"1" SP SP), not four times (SP SP 1 SP, SP 1 SP, SP 1 SP SP and SP SP
1 SP SP), since the four matches are in a sense the same match.
A string is a substring of itself. The empty string is a substring
of all strings.
Note that the substring operation of some collations can match
strings of unequal length. For example, a pre-composed accented
character can match a decomposed accented character. The Unicode
Collation Algorithm [7] discusses this in more detail.
The return values of the substring operation are called "match", "no-
match" and "undefined" in this document.
4.2.4. Ordering
The ordering operation determines how two strings are ordered. It
MUST be reflexive. For valid input, it MUST be transitive and
trichotomous.
Ordering returns "less" if the first string is listed before the
second string according to the collation, "greater" if the second
string is listed before the first string, and "equal" if the two
strings are equal as defined by the collation's equality operation.
If one or both strings are invalid, the result of ordering is
"undefined".
When the collation is used with a "+" prefix, the behavior is the
same as when used with no prefix. When the collation is used with a
"-" prefix, the result of the ordering operation of the collation
MUST be reversed.
The return values of the ordering operation are called "less",
"equal", "greater" and "undefined" in this document.
4.3. Sort Keys
A collation specification SHOULD describe the internal transformation
algorithm to generate sort keys. This algorithm can be applied to
individual strings and the result can be stored to potentially
optimize future comparison operations. A collation MAY specify that
the sort key is generated by the identity function. The sort key may
have no meaning to a human. The sort key may not be valid input to
the collation.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
4.4. Use of Lookup Tables
Some collations use customizable lookup tables, e.g. because the
tables depend on locale and may be modified after shipping the
software. Collations 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 collation, so that clients and servers use
the same tables.
5. Application Protocol Requirements
This section describes the requirements and issues that an
application protocol needs to consider if it offers searching,
substring matching and/or sorting, and permits the use of characters
outside the US-ASCII charset.
5.1. Character Encoding
The protocol specification has to make sure that it is clear on which
characters (rather than just octets) the collations are used. This
can be done by specifying the protocol itself in terms of characters
(e.g. in the case of a query language), by specifying a single
character encoding for the protocol (e.g. UTF-8 [3]), or by
carefully describing the relevant issues of character encoding
labeling and conversion. In the later case, 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.
5.2. Operations
The protocol must specify which of the operations defined in this
specification (equality matching, substring matching and ordering)
can be invoked in the protocol, and how they are invoked. There may
be more than one way to invoke an operation.
The protocol MUST provide a mechanism for the client to select the
collation to use with equality matching, substring matching and
ordering.
If a protocol needs a total ordering and the collation chosen does
not provide it because the ordering operation returns "undefined" at
least once, the recommended fallback is to sort all invalid strings
after the valid ones, and use i;octet to order the invalid strings.
Although the collation's substring function provides a list of
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
matches, a protocol need not provide all that to the client. It may
provide only the first matching substring, or even just the
information that the substring search matched. In this way,
collations can be used with protocols that are defined such that |x
is a substring of y" returns true-false.
If the protocol provides positional information for the results of a
substring match, that positional information SHOULD fully specify the
substring(s) 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 collations can
treat strings of different lengths as equal (for example, pre-
composed and decomposed accented characters).
5.3. Wildcards
The protocol MUST specify whether it allows the use of wildcards in
collation identifiers or not. If the protocol allows wildcards,
then:
The protocol MUST specify how comparisons behave in the absence of
explicit collation negotiation or when a collation of "default" is
requested. The protocol MAY specify that the default collation
used in such circumstances is sensitive to server configuration.
The protocol SHOULD provide a way to list available collations
matching a given wildcard pattern or patterns.
5.4. String Comparison
If a protocol compares strings in any nontrivial way, using a
collation may be appropriate. As an example, many protocols use
case-independent strings. In many cases, a simple ASCII mapping to
upper/lower case works well. In other cases, it may be better to use
a specifiable collation, for example so that a server can treat "i"
and "I" as equivalent in Italy and different in Turkey (Turkey also
has dotted upper-case I and dotless lower-case i).
Protocol designers should consider in each case whether to use a
specifiable collation. Keywords often have other needs than user
variables, and search arguments may be different again.
5.5. Disconnected Clients
If the protocol supports disconnected clients and a collation is used
which can use configurable tables (e.g. to support locale-specific
extensions), then the client may not be able to reproduce the
server's collation operations while offline.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
A mechanism to download such tables has been discussed. Such a
mechanism is not included in the present specification, since the
problem is not yet well understood.
5.6. Error Codes
The protocol specification should consider assigning protocol error
codes for the following circumstances:
o The client requests the use of a collation by identifier or
pattern, but no implemented collation matches that pattern.
o The client attempts to use a collation for an operation that is
not supported by that collation. For example, attempting to use
the "i;ascii-numeric" collation for substring matching.
o The client uses an equality or substring matching collation 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
string.
5.7. Octet Collation
The i;octet (Section 9.3) collation is only usable with protocols
based on octet-strings. Clients and servers MUST NOT use i;octet
with other protocols.
If the protocol permits the use of collations with data structures
other than strings, the protocol MUST describe the default behavior
for a collation with those data structures.
6. Use by Existing Protocols
Both ACAP [11] and Sieve [14] are standards track specifications
which used collations prior to the creation of this specification and
registry. Those standards do not meet all the application protocol
requirements described in Section 5.
These protocols allow the use of the i;octet (Section 9.3) collation
working directly on UTF-8 data as used in these protocols.
In Sieve, all matches are either true and false. Accordingly, Sieve
servers must treat "undefined" and "no-match" results of the equality
and substring operations as false, and only "match" as true.
In ACAP and Sieve, there are no invalid strings. In this document's
terms, invalid strings sort after valid strings.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
IMAP [15] also collates, although that is explicit only when the
COMPARATOR [17] extension is used. The built-in IMAP substring
operation and the ordering provided by the SORT [16] extension may
not meet the requirements made in this document.
Other protocols may be in a similar position.
In IMAP, the default collation is i;ascii-casemap, because its
operations are understood to match's IMAP's built-in operations.
7. Collation Registration
7.1. Collation Registration Procedure
The IETF will create a mailing list, collation@ietf.org, which can be
used for public discussion of collation proposals prior to
registration. Use of the mailing list is strongly encouraged. The
IESG will appoint a designated expert who will monitor the
collation@ietf.org mailing list and review registrations.
The registration procedure begins when a completed registration
template is sent to iana@iana.org and collation@ietf.org. The
designated expert is expected to tell IANA and the submitter of the
registration within two weeks whether the registration is approved,
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 IESG Applications Area Director,
then to the IESG. They follow the normal appeals procedure for IESG
decisions.
Collation registrations in a standards track, BCP or IESG-approved
experimental RFC are owned by the IETF, and changes to the
registration follow normal procedures for updating such documents.
Collation registrations in other RFCs are owned by the RFC author(s).
Other collation registrations are owned by the individual(s) listed
in the contact field of the registration and IANA will preserve this
information.
If the registration is a change of an existing collation, it MUST be
approved by the owner. In the event the owner cannot be contacted
for a period of one month and the designated expert deems the change
necessary, the IESG MAY re-assign ownership to an appropriate party.
7.2. Collation Registration Format
Registration of a collation is done by sending a well-formed XML
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
document to collation@ietf.org and iana@iana.org.
7.2.1. Registration Template
Here is a template for the registration:
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="YYYY" scope="global" intendedUse="common">
<identifier>collation identifier</identifier>
<title>technical title for collation</title>
<operations>equality order substring</operations>
<specification>specification reference</specification>
<owner>email address of owner or IETF</owner>
<submitter>email address of submitter</submitter>
<version>1</version>
</collation>
7.2.2. The collation Element
The root of the registration document MUST be a <collation> element.
The collation element contains the other elements in the
registration, which are described in the following sub-subsections,
in the order given here.
The <collation> element MAY include an "rfc=" attribute if the
specification is in an RFC. The "rfc=" attribute gives only the
number of the RFC, without any prefix, such as "RFC", or suffix, such
as ".txt".
The <collation> element MUST include a "scope=" attribute, which MUST
have one of the values "global", "local" or "other".
The <collation> element MUST include an "intendedUse=" attribute,
which must have one of the values "common", "limited", "vendor", or
"deprecated". Collation specifications intended for "common" use are
expected to reference standards from standards bodies with
significant experience dealing with the details of international
character sets.
Be aware that future revisions of this specification may add
additional function types, as well as additional XML attributes,
values and elements. Any system which automatically parses these XML
documents MUST take this into account to preserve future
compatibility.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
7.2.3. The identifier Element
The <identifier> element gives the precise identifier of the
collation, e.g. i;ascii-casemap. The <identifier> element is
mandatory.
7.2.4. The title Element
The <title> element gives the title of the collation. The <title>
element is mandatory.
7.2.5. The operations Element
The <operations> element lists which of the three operations
("equality", "order" or "substring") the collation provides,
separated by single spaces. The <operations> element is mandatory.
7.2.6. The specification Element
The <specification> element describes where to find the
specification. The <specification> element is mandatory. It MAY
have a URI attribute. There may be more than one <specification>
elements, in which case they together form the specification.
If it is discovered that parts of a collation specification conflict,
a new revision of the collation is necessary, and the
collation@ietf.org mailing list should be notified.
7.2.7. The submitter Element
The <submitter> element provides an RFC 2822 [12] email address for
the person who submitted the registration. It is optional if the
<owner> element contains an email address.
There may be more than one <submitter> element.
7.2.8. The owner Element
The <owner> element contains either the four letters "IETF" or an
email address of the owner of the registration. The <owner> element
is mandatory. There may be more than one <owner> element. If so,
all owners are equal. Each owner can speak for all.
7.2.9. The version Element
The <version> element MUST be included when the registration is
likely to be revised or has been revised in such a way that the
results change for certain input strings. The <version> element is
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
optional.
7.2.10. The variable Element
The <variable> element specifies an optional variable using which the
collation's behaviour can be tailored. The <variable> element is
optional. When it is used, it must contain <name> and <default>
elements and may contain one or more <value> elements.
7.2.10.1. The name Element
The <name> element specifies the name value of a variable. The
<name> element is mandatory.
7.2.10.2. The default Element
The <default> element specifies the default value of a variable. The
<default> element is mandatory.
7.2.10.3. The value Element
The <value> element specifies a legal value of a variable. The
<value> element is optional. If one or more <value> elements are
present, only those values are legal. If none is, then the
variable's legal values do not form an enumerated set, and the rules
MUST be specified in an RFC accompanying the registration.
7.3. Structure of Collation Registry
Once the registration is approved, IANA will store each XML
registration document in a URL of the form
http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/collation-id.xml where
collation-id is the contents of the identifier element in the
registration. Both the submitter and the designated expert are
responsible for verifying that the XML is well-formed. The
registration document should avoid using new elements. If any are
necessary, it is important to be consistent with other registrations.
IANA will also maintain a text summary of the registry under the name
http://www.iana.org/assignments/collation/summary.txt. This summary
is divided into four sections. The first section is for collations
intended for common use. This section is intended for collation
registrations published in IESG approved RFCs or for locally scoped
collations from the primary standards body for that locale. The
designated expert is encouraged to reject collation 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
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
for limited use collations. The third section is reserved for
registered vendor specific collations. The final section is reserved
for deprecated collations.
7.4. Example Initial Registry Summary
The following is an example of how IANA might structure the initial
registry summary.txt file:
Collation Functions Scope Reference
--------- --------- ----- ---------
Common Use Collations:
i;ascii-casemap e, o, s Local [RFC XXXX]
Limited Use Collations:
i;octet e, o, s Other [RFC XXXX]
i;ascii-numeric e, o Other [RFC XXXX]
Vendor Collations:
Deprecated Collations:
References
----------
[RFC XXXX] Newman, C., Duerst, M., Gulbrandsen, A., "Internet
Application Protocol Collation Registry", RFC XXXX,
Sun Microsystems, October 2013.
8. Guidelines for Expert Reviewer
The expert reviewer appointed by the IESG has fairly broad latitude
for this registry. While a number of collations are expected
(particularly customizations of the UCA for localized use), an
explosion of collations (particularly common use collations) 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 is not a well-formed XML document.
o The registration has an intended use of "common", but there is no
evidence the collation will be widely deployed, so it should be
listed as "limited".
o The registration has an intended use of "common", but it is
redundant with the functionality of a previously registered
"common" collation.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
o The registration has an intended use of "common", but the
specification is not detailed enough to allow interoperable
implementations by others.
o The collation identifier 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 collation identifier fails to meet the syntax in Section 3.
o The collation 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 collation.
o The registration's operations are needlessly different from those
of traditional operations.
o The registration's XML is needlessly different from that of
already registered collations.
9. Initial Collations
This section registers the three collations that were originally
defined in [RFC2244] and are implemented in most [SIEVE] engines.
Some of the behaviour of these collations is perhaps not ideal, such
as i;ascii-casemap accepting non-ASCII input. Compatibility with
widely deployed code was judged more important than Some of the
perhaps surprising aspects of these collations are necessary to
maintain compatibility with widely deployed code.
9.1. ASCII Numeric Collation
9.1.1. ASCII Numeric Collation Description
The "i;ascii-numeric" collation is a simple collation intended for
use with arbitrary sized unsigned decimal integer numbers stored as
octet strings. US-ASCII digits (0x30 to 0x39) represent digits of
the numbers. Before converting from string to integer, the input
string is truncated at the first non-digit character. All input is
valid; strings which do not start with a digit represent positive
infinity.
The collation supports equality and ordering, but does not support
the substring operation.
The equality operation returns "match" if the two strings represent
the same number (i.e. leading zeroes and trailing non-digits are
disregarded) and "no-match" if the two strings represent different
numbers.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
The ordering operation returns "less" if the first string represents
a smaller number than the second, "equal" if they represent the same
number, and "greater" if the first string represents a larger number
than the second.
Some examples: "0" is less than "1", and "1" is less than
"4294967298". "4294967298", "04294967298" and "4294967298b" are all
equal. "04294967298" is less than "". "", "x" and "y" are equal.
9.1.2. ASCII Numeric Collation Registration
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="XXXX" scope="other" intendedUse="limited">
<identifier>i;ascii-numeric</identifier>
<title>ASCII Numeric</title>
<operations>equality order</operations>
<specification>RFC XXXX</specification>
<owner>IETF</owner>
<submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
9.2. ASCII Casemap Collation
9.2.1. ASCII Casemap Collation Description
The "i;ascii-casemap" collation is a simple collation which operates
on octet strings and treats US-ASCII letters case-insensitively. It
provides equality, substring and ordering operations. All input is
valid. Note that letters outside ASCII are not treated case-
insensitively.
Its equality, ordering and substring operations are as for i;octet,
except that first, the lower-case letters (octet values 97-122) in
each input string are changed to upper case (octet values 65-90).
Care should be taken when using OS-supplied functions to implement
this collation as it is not locale sensitive. Functions such as
strcasecmp and toupper are sometimes locale sensitive and may
inappropriately map lower-case letters other than a-z to upper case.
The i;ascii-casemap collation is well suited to to use with many
Internet protocols and computer languages. Use with natural language
is often inappropriate: even though the collation apparently supports
languages such as Swahili and English, in real-world use it tends to
mis-sort a number of types of string:
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
o people and place names containing non-ASCII,
o words such as "naive" (if spelled with an accent, the accented
character could push the word to the wrong spot in a sorted list),
o names such as "Lloyd" (which in Welsh sorts after "Lyon", unlike
in English),
o strings containing euro and pound sterling symbols, quotation
marks other than '"', dashes/hyphens, etc.
9.2.2. ASCII Casemap Collation Registration
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="XXXX" scope="local" intendedUse="common">
<identifier>i;ascii-casemap</identifier>
<title>ASCII Casemap</title>
<operations>equality order substring</operations>
<specification>RFC XXXX</specification>
<owner>IETF</owner>
<submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
9.3. Octet Collation
9.3.1. Octet Collation Description
The "i;octet" collation is a simple and fast collation intended for
use on binary octet strings rather than on character data. Protocols
that want to make this collation available have to do so by
explicitly allowing it. If not explicitly allowed, it MUST NOT be
used. It never returns an "undefined" result. It provides equality,
substring and ordering operations.
The ordering algorithm is as follows:
1. If both strings are the empty string, return the result "equal".
2. If the first string is empty and the second is not, return the
result "less".
3. If the second string is empty and the first is not, return the
result "greater".
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 "less".
6. If this step is reached, return "greater".
This algorithm is roughly equivalent to the C library function memcmp
with appropriate length checks added.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
The matching operation returns "match" if the sorting algorithm would
return "equal". Otherwise the matching operation returns "no-match".
The substring operation 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
operation returns "no-match".
9.3.2. Octet Collation Registration
This collation is defined with intendedUse="limited" because it can
only be used by protocols that explicitly allow it.
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE collation SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
<collation rfc="XXXX" scope="global" intendedUse="limited">
<identifier>i;octet</identifier>
<title>Octet</title>
<operations>equality order substring</operations>
<specification>RFC XXXX</specification>
<owner>IETF</owner>
<submitter>chris.newman@sun.com<submitter>
</collation>
10. IANA Considerations
Section 7 defines how to register collations with IANA. Section 9
defines a list of predefined collations, which should be registered
when this document is approved and published as an RFC.
11. Security Considerations
Collations will normally be used with UTF-8 strings. Thus the
security considerations for UTF-8 [3], stringprep [6] and Unicode
TR-36 [8] also apply and are normative to this specification.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank all who have contributed to this document,
including at least Brian Carpenter, John Cowan, Dave Cridland, Mark
Davis, Spencer Dawkins, Lisa Dusseault, Lars Eggert, Frank Ellermann,
Philip Guenther, Tony Hansen, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartman, Kjetil Torgrim
Homme, Michael Kay, John Klensin, Alexey Melnikov, Jim Melton and
Abhijit Menon-Sen.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
13. Open Issues
Dear RFC Editor, please do the following:
1. Move the parenthetical request after Martin Duerst's name to be a
separate paragrah between Martin's URI and Arnt's name.
2. Remove section 13 (Open Issues) and section 14 (Change Log).
14. Change Log
14.1. Changes From -13
1. Simpler language in the text describing how to select a
collation baed on a wildcard.
2. Trichotomy is only required for valid input to the ordering
operation.
3. Make it clear that registering a new version of a collation
counts as a registration, with the same procedure. Add a MUST
for the version element in that case.
4. Attended to nits and stuff from Lars Eggert
5. Simpler language wrt. the names of return values.
6. Talk about why protocols don't have to return all the
information substring returns.
7. Use bullet points rather than rambling text about i;ascii-
casemap and natural language.
8. Reworded sections 5.4 and 5.5 after discussion with Sam Hartman.
5.4 could mislead into thinking that the server should use the
sort key. 5.5 was just plain uninformative text once the rest of
table download had been removed.
9. Removed i;nameprep for possible publication as a separate draft/
RFC. It was broken, and it's also out of this document's
natural scope (define registry, populate with legacy values).
10. Changed the grammar of collation names to match the textual
description better.
11. Refer to RFC 4646, not 3066.
14.2. Changes From -12
1. Remove i;basic, to publish it as a separate RFC. Many documents
are held up by this document, and this document is only help up
by i;basic.
2. Get rid of all the typoes I could find. Added one.
3. Specifically note that the "same" substring match need not always
be returned in each of its guises.
14.3. Changes From -11
1. Remove the DTD. Permit well-considered extension of the XML.
Enable the designated expert to block registrations due to
inappropriate or overly aggressive extension.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
2. Rename collation names to collation identifiers. Having both
names and titles wasn't good.
3. Removed some open issues after trying to edit, and deciding that
the existing text was good.
4. Note that in Sieve, invalid strings sort after valid ones.
5. Make i;ascii-numeric as in RFC2244. The task of this document is
to establish the registry, not change existing collations.
14.4. Changes From -10
1. Updated contact details for Martin Duerst.
2. Various textual improvements.
3. The registration's file name now has a mandatory .xml extension.
4. Removed binding MUST for Sieve; it's more appropriate to put that
in 3028bis.
5. Syntax fix in registration example.
6. When there are multiple specifications, they now act in concert,
so it's possible to have e.g. a main specification and multiple
locale-specific supplements. It is not possible to name multiple
locations for the same specification any more. That'll return as
a comment feature.
7. Hopefully clearer exposition of i;ascii-casemap.
8. The ban on registering octet-based collations is lifted. One
hopes that the collation mailing list will present a suitable
threshold - not too high, not too low.
9. The DTD is published where IE can see it while looking at the
registrations.
14.5. Changes From -09
1. Rename "error" to "undefined", as suggested by Mark Davis. The
new name makes for nicer prose IMO.
2. 7b=7 according to i;ascii-numeric. ACAP/Sieve need it.
3. Clarified that even though the collation specification returns a
list of substrings, the protocol/server need not use all of that
information. (As indeed IMAP SEARCH does not.)
4. Registrations go directly to the collation list _and_ to the
IANA, not to the IANA and from there forwarded to designated
expert.
5. Added an acknowledgements list and populated it with a quick grep
from my mailbox and memory. Surely incomplete.
6. Noted that in sieve, "no-match" and "undefined" must be treated
in the same way by the engine.
7. Finish the rename from canonical to sort key.
8. Don't fall back to i;octet from any other collation. Return
undefined instead. Note that protocols may fall back to i;octet
to provide total ordering, if necessary.
9. Call the things operations everywhere, not operators/operations.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
14.6. Changes From -08
1. i;ascii-casemap instead of en;ascii-casemap.
2. UCA v 14. Changing to "latest version of UCA" was suggested,
but rejected since IETF standards reference stable
specifications, and "latest" is a moving target.
3. Removed all text on multi-valued attributes. Can be added once
there is a concrete need for it, either in an update to this
document or in the protocol that needs it.
4. "Collations MUST specify the canonicalization". Well, the UCA
doesn't, so I changed that to a MAY.
5. Add some text explaining why one might want to download tables.
6. Changed the remaining instances of "canonicalization" to talk
about sort keys. Added a note that a collation's sort key need
not be valid input to the same collation.
7. Reserve the word "default" and use it to name a protocol's
default collation, provided that protocol has a default
collation. In earlier versions of the draft, "*" was used to
name the default collation, but "*" also was implicitly defined
as the most general collation available.
8. Reinstate the different-length example of substring match.
Explain what an overlapping match is, by the canonical example.
9. Avoid the word "contain" when talking about substring matches.
Fewer terms is better.
10. Until -07, both a collation and equality/substring/sort was
called functions. In -07, the trio was renamed as operations.
Now, the DTD is updated to match.
11. Appeals go to the Apps AD before the general AD, as suggested by
Spencer Dawkins.
14.7. Changes From -06
1. Clarified equality and identity: equality is as defined by a
collation, identity is stronger.
2. Added reference to
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Searching.
3. Don't describe sort keys as a canonical representation of the
string.
4. Permit disconnected clients to use wildcards. (A disconnected
client has to resolve the wildcard itself, in the same way that a
server would.)
5. Change collation-wild to have the same length limit as collation.
6. Change to use "less" instead of "-1", etc., and specify that it's
just phrasing, not specification.
7. Don't describe the equality, substring and ordering operations as
functions. The definition of collation uses the word function
about the collation itself. A function that has three functions?
Something has to give.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
8. Strike a requirement that selecting '*' is the same as not
selecting any collation. It restricted the protocol's default
too much. Existing code wasn't listening.
9. Left out the canonicalization/sort keys.
14.8. Changes From -05
1. Added definitions of client, server and protocol, and prose to
specify that while the IANA registrations of collations are
written in terms octet strings, implementations may do it
differently.
2. Changed the wording for ascii-numeric to treat the numbers as
numbers, etc.
3. Added explicit property requirements for the three functions,
e.g. that equality be symmetric. Added requirements that the
three functions be consistent, and that if any operations are
present, equality must be (needed for consistency).
4. Random editing, e.g. changing 'numbers' for ascii-numeric to
'integer numbers'.
5. Gave IMAP/SORT/COMPARATOR the same grandfather treatment as ACAP
and SIEVE.
14.9. Changes From -04
Grammar and clarity changes only. One (weak) example added. No
substantive changes.
14.10. Changes From -03
(This does not include all changes made.)
1. Checked and resolved most issues marked 'check whether this is
true' or similar.
2. Resolved nameprep issue: No.
3. Removed NULL for compatibility with existing collations (IMAP
SORT, Sieve).
4. There can be multiple owners and submitters. Say how.
5. Added a requirement that common collations must now be
interoperable. Insufficiently detailed specs cannot be "common".
6. Added a guideline that the operations provided by new collations
should be reminiscent of similar operations on existing
collations.
14.11. Changes From -02
1. Changed from data being octet sequences (in UTF-8) to data being
character sequences (with octet collation as an exception).
2. Made XML format description much more structured.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
3. Changed <submittor> to <submitter>, because this spelling is much
more common.
4. Defined 'protocol' to include query languages.
5. Reorganized document, in particular IANA considerations section
(which newly is just a list of pointers).
6. Added subsections, and a 'Structure of this Document' section.
7. Updated references.
8. Created a 'Change Log' chapter, with sections for each draft.
9. Reduced 'Open issues' section, open issues are now maintained at
http://www.w3.org/2004/08/ietf-collation.
14.12. Changes From -01
Add IANA comment to open issues. Otherwise this is just a re-publish
to keep the document alive.
14.13. Changes From -00
1. Replaced the term comparator with collation. While comparator is
somewhat more precise because these abstract functions are used
for matching as well as ordering, collation is the term used by
other parts of the industry. Thus I have changed the name to
collation for consistency.
2. Remove all modifiers to the basic collation except for the
customization and the match rules. The other behavior
modifications can be specified in a customization of the
collation.
3. Use ";" instead of "-" as delimiter between parameters to make
names more URL-ish.
4. Add URL form for comparator reference.
5. Switched registration template to use XML document.
6. Added a number of useful registration template elements related
to the Unicode Collation Algorithm.
7. Switched language from "custom" to "tailor" to match UCA language
for tailoring of the collation algorithm.
15. References
15.1. 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 4234, October 2005.
[3] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[5] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages",
BCP 47, RFC 4646, September 2006.
[6] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of Internationalized
Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454, December 2002.
[7] Davis, M. and K. Whistler, "Unicode Collation Algorithm version
14", May 2005,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-14.html>.
[8] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Security Considerations",
February 2006, <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.
15.2. Informative References
[9] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[10] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997.
[11] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application Configuration
Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
[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.
[15] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[16] Crispin, M. and K. Murchison, "Internet Message Access Protocol
- Sort and Thread Extensions", draft-ietf-imapext-sort-17.txt
(work in progress), May 2004.
[17] Newman, C. and A. Gulbrandsen, "Internet Message Access
Protocol Internationalization", draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-06.txt
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
(work in progress), January 2006.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
Authors' Addresses
Chris Newman
Sun Microsystems
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790
US
Email: chris.newman@sun.com
Martin Duerst (Note: Please write "Duerst" with u-umlaut wherever possible, for example as "Dürst" in XML and HTML.)
Aoyama Gakuin University
5-10-1 Fuchinobe
Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8558
Japan
Phone: +81 42 759 6329
Fax: +81 42 759 6495
Email: mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
URI: http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/D%C3%BCrst/
Arnt Gulbrandsen
Oryx Mail Systems GmbH
Schweppermannstr. 8
Munich 81671
Germany
Fax: +49 89 4502 9758
Email: mailto:arnt@oryx.com
URI: http://www.oryx.com/arnt/
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Collation Registry September 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newman, et al. Expires March 17, 2007 [Page 31]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/