draft-ietf-xmpp-address-09.txt   rfc6122.txt 
XMPP P. Saint-Andre Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft Cisco Request for Comments: 6122 Cisco
Updates: 3920 (if approved) January 6, 2011 Updates: 3920 March 2011
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: July 10, 2011 ISSN: 2070-1721
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format
draft-ietf-xmpp-address-09
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format for addresses used in the Extensible This document defines the format for addresses used in the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for non- Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for
ASCII characters. This document updates RFC 3920. non-ASCII characters. This document updates RFC 3920.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6122.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
2.4. Resourcepart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4. Resourcepart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Reuse of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Reuse of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Reuse of Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Reuse of Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Address Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Address Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Address Forging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.1. Address Forging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. Address Mimicking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2. Address Mimicking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Conformance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Conformance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Nodeprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Nodeprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.2. Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.3. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.4. Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Prohibited Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.5. Prohibited Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.6. Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.6. Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.7. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.7. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix B. Resourceprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix B. Resourceprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.2. Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B.2. Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.3. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B.3. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.4. Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B.4. Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.5. Prohibited Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B.5. Prohibited Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.6. Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 B.6. Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix C. Differences From RFC 3920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix C. Differences from RFC 3920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Overview 1.1. Overview
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an
application profile of the Extensible Markup Language [XML] for application profile of the Extensible Markup Language [XML] for
streaming XML data in close to real time between any two or more streaming XML data in close to real time between any two or more
network-aware entities. The address format for XMPP entities was network-aware entities. The address format for XMPP entities was
originally developed in the Jabber open-source community in 1999, originally developed in the Jabber open-source community in 1999,
first described by [XEP-0029] in 2002, and defined canonically by first described by [XEP-0029] in 2002, and defined canonically by
[RFC3920] in 2004. [RFC3920] in 2004.
As specified in RFC 3920, the XMPP address format re-uses the As specified in RFC 3920, the XMPP address format reuses the
"stringprep" technology for preparation of non-ASCII characters "stringprep" technology for preparation of non-ASCII characters
[STRINGPREP], including the Nameprep profile for internationalized [STRINGPREP], including the Nameprep profile for internationalized
domain names as specified in [NAMEPREP] and [IDNA2003] along with two domain names as specified in [NAMEPREP] and [IDNA2003] along with two
XMPP-specific profiles for the localpart and resourcepart. XMPP-specific profiles for the localpart and resourcepart.
Since the publication of RFC 3920, IDNA2003 has been superseded by Since the publication of RFC 3920, IDNA2003 has been superseded by
IDNA2008 (see [IDNA-PROTO] and related documents), which is not based IDNA2008 (see [IDNA-PROTO] and related documents), which is not based
on stringprep. Following the lead of the IDNA community, other on stringprep. Following the lead of the IDNA community, other
technology communities that use stringprep have begun discussions technology communities that use stringprep have begun discussions
about migrating away from stringprep toward more "modern" approaches. about migrating away from stringprep toward more "modern" approaches.
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
for XMPP. It is expected that this document will be obsoleted as for XMPP. It is expected that this document will be obsoleted as
soon as work on a new approach to preparation and comparison of soon as work on a new approach to preparation and comparison of
internationalized addresses has been completed. internationalized addresses has been completed.
Therefore, this specification provides corrected documentation of the Therefore, this specification provides corrected documentation of the
XMPP address format using the internationalization technologies XMPP address format using the internationalization technologies
available in 2004 (when RFC 3920 was published). Although this available in 2004 (when RFC 3920 was published). Although this
document normatively references [IDNA2003] and [NAMEPREP], XMPP document normatively references [IDNA2003] and [NAMEPREP], XMPP
software implementations are encouraged to begin migrating to software implementations are encouraged to begin migrating to
IDNA2008 (see [IDNA-PROTO] and related documents) because the IDNA2008 (see [IDNA-PROTO] and related documents) because the
specification that obsoletes this one will re-use IDNA2008 rather specification that obsoletes this one will use IDNA2008 rather than
than IDNA2003. IDNA2003.
This document updates RFC 3920. This document updates RFC 3920.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
Many important terms used in this document are defined in [IDNA2003], Many important terms used in this document are defined in [IDNA2003],
[STRINGPREP], [UNICODE], and [XMPP]. [STRINGPREP], [UNICODE], and [XMPP].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
; point that satisfies the Nodeprep profile of ; point that satisfies the Nodeprep profile of
; stringprep ; stringprep
; ;
domainpart = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn domainpart = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn
; ;
; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are
; defined in RFC 3986, and the first-match-wins ; defined in RFC 3986, and the first-match-wins
; (a.k.a. "greedy") algorithm described in RFC ; (a.k.a. "greedy") algorithm described in RFC
; 3986 applies to the matching process ; 3986 applies to the matching process
; ;
; note well that re-use of the IP-literal rule ; note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule
; from RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are ; from RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are
; enclosed in square brackets (i.e., beginning ; enclosed in square brackets (i.e., beginning
; with '[' and ending with ']'), which was not ; with '[' and ending with ']'), which was not
; the case in RFC 3920 ; the case in RFC 3920
; ;
ifqdn = 1*(namepoint) ifqdn = 1*(namepoint)
; ;
; a "namepoint" is a UTF-8 encoded Unicode ; a "namepoint" is a UTF-8 encoded Unicode
; code point that satisfies the Nameprep ; code point that satisfies the Nameprep
; profile of stringprep ; profile of stringprep
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
identifier and is the only REQUIRED element of a JID (a mere identifier and is the only REQUIRED element of a JID (a mere
domainpart is a valid JID). Typically a domainpart identifies the domainpart is a valid JID). Typically a domainpart identifies the
"home" server to which clients connect for XML routing and data "home" server to which clients connect for XML routing and data
management functionality. However, it is not necessary for an XMPP management functionality. However, it is not necessary for an XMPP
domainpart to identify an entity that provides core XMPP server domainpart to identify an entity that provides core XMPP server
functionality (e.g., a domainpart can identify an entity such as a functionality (e.g., a domainpart can identify an entity such as a
multi-user chat service, a publish-subscribe service, or a user multi-user chat service, a publish-subscribe service, or a user
directory). directory).
The domainpart for every XMPP service MUST be a fully qualified The domainpart for every XMPP service MUST be a fully qualified
domain name ("FQDN"; see [DNS]), IPv4 address, IPv6 address, or domain name (FQDN; see [DNS]), IPv4 address, IPv6 address, or
unqualifed hostname (i.e., a text label that is resolvable on a local unqualified hostname (i.e., a text label that is resolvable on a
network). local network).
Interoperability Note: Domainparts that are IP addresses might not Interoperability Note: Domainparts that are IP addresses might not
be accepted by other services for the sake of server-to-server be accepted by other services for the sake of server-to-server
communication, and domainparts that are unqualified hostnames communication, and domainparts that are unqualified hostnames
cannot be used on public networks because they are resolvable only cannot be used on public networks because they are resolvable only
on a local network. on a local network.
If the domainpart includes a final character considered to be a label If the domainpart includes a final character considered to be a label
separator (dot) by [IDNA2003] or [DNS], this character MUST be separator (dot) by [IDNA2003] or [DNS], this character MUST be
stripped from the domainpart before the JID of which it is a part is stripped from the domainpart before the JID of which it is a part is
used for the purpose of routing an XML stanza, comparing against used for the purpose of routing an XML stanza, comparing against
another JID, or constructing an [XMPP-URI]; in particular, the another JID, or constructing an [XMPP-URI]. In particular, the
character MUST be stripped before any other canonicalization steps character MUST be stripped before any other canonicalization steps
are taken, such as application of the [NAMEPREP] profile of are taken, such as application of the [NAMEPREP] profile of
[STRINGPREP] or completion of the ToASCII operation as described in [STRINGPREP] or completion of the ToASCII operation as described in
[IDNA2003]. [IDNA2003].
A domainpart consisting of a fully qualified domain name MUST be an A domainpart consisting of a fully qualified domain name MUST be an
"internationalized domain name" as defined in [IDNA2003], that is, it "internationalized domain name" as defined in [IDNA2003]; that is, it
MUST be "a domain name in which every label is an internationalized MUST be "a domain name in which every label is an internationalized
label" and MUST follow the rules for construction of label" and MUST follow the rules for construction of
internationalized domain names specified in [IDNA2003]. When internationalized domain names specified in [IDNA2003]. When
preparing a text label (consisting of a sequence of UTF-8 encoded preparing a text label (consisting of a sequence of UTF-8 encoded
Unicode code points) for representation as an internationalized label Unicode code points) for representation as an internationalized label
in the process of constructing an XMPP domainpart or comparing two in the process of constructing an XMPP domainpart or comparing two
XMPP domainparts, an application MUST ensure that for each text label XMPP domainparts, an application MUST ensure that for each text label
it is possible to apply without failing the ToASCII operation it is possible to apply without failing the ToASCII operation
specified in [IDNA2003] with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set (thus specified in [IDNA2003] with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set (thus
forbidding ASCII code points other than letters, digits, and forbidding ASCII code points other than letters, digits, and
skipping to change at page 9, line 13 skipping to change at page 9, line 16
SHOULD NOT impute meaning to any given resourcepart. In particular: SHOULD NOT impute meaning to any given resourcepart. In particular:
o Use of the '/' character as a separator between the domainpart and o Use of the '/' character as a separator between the domainpart and
the resourcepart does not imply that XMPP addresses are the resourcepart does not imply that XMPP addresses are
hierarchical in the way that, say, HTTP addresses are hierarchical in the way that, say, HTTP addresses are
hierarchical; thus for example an XMPP address of the form hierarchical; thus for example an XMPP address of the form
<localpart@domainpart/foo/bar> does not identify a resource "bar" <localpart@domainpart/foo/bar> does not identify a resource "bar"
that exists below a resource "foo" in a hierarchy of resources that exists below a resource "foo" in a hierarchy of resources
associated with the entity "localpart@domain". associated with the entity "localpart@domain".
o The '@' character is allowed in the resourcepart, and is often o The '@' character is allowed in the resourcepart and is often used
used in the "nick" shown in XMPP chatrooms. For example, the JID in the "nick" shown in XMPP chatrooms. For example, the JID
<room@chat.example.com/user@host> describes an entity who is an <room@chat.example.com/user@host> describes an entity who is an
occupant of the room <room@chat.example.com> with an (asserted) occupant of the room <room@chat.example.com> with an (asserted)
nick of <user@host>. However, chatroom services do not nick of <user@host>. However, chatroom services do not
necessarily check such an asserted nick against the occupant's necessarily check such an asserted nick against the occupant's
real JID. real JID.
3. Internationalization Considerations 3. Internationalization Considerations
XMPP servers MUST, and XMPP clients SHOULD, support [IDNA2003] for XMPP servers MUST, and XMPP clients SHOULD, support [IDNA2003] for
domainparts (including the [NAMEPREP] profile of [STRINGPREP]), the domainparts (including the [NAMEPREP] profile of [STRINGPREP]), the
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 skipping to change at page 9, line 42
address format are provided in [XMPP]. address format are provided in [XMPP].
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
4.1. Reuse of Stringprep 4.1. Reuse of Stringprep
The security considerations described in [STRINGPREP] apply to the The security considerations described in [STRINGPREP] apply to the
Nodeprep (Appendix A) and Resourceprep (Appendix B) profiles defined Nodeprep (Appendix A) and Resourceprep (Appendix B) profiles defined
in this document for XMPP localparts and resourceparts. The security in this document for XMPP localparts and resourceparts. The security
considerations described in [STRINGPREP] and [NAMEPREP] apply to the considerations described in [STRINGPREP] and [NAMEPREP] apply to the
Nameprep profile that is re-used here for XMPP domainparts. Nameprep profile that is reused here for XMPP domainparts.
4.2. Reuse of Unicode 4.2. Reuse of Unicode
The security considerations described in [UNICODE-SEC] apply to the The security considerations described in [UNICODE-SEC] apply to the
use of Unicode characters in XMPP addresses. use of Unicode characters in XMPP addresses.
4.3. Address Spoofing 4.3. Address Spoofing
There are two forms of address spoofing: forging and mimicking. There are two forms of address spoofing: forging and mimicking.
skipping to change at page 11, line 18 skipping to change at page 11, line 18
U+13AC U+13A2 U+13AC U+13D2 from the Cherokee block instead of the U+13AC U+13A2 U+13AC U+13D2 from the Cherokee block instead of the
similar-looking US-ASCII characters "STPETER". similar-looking US-ASCII characters "STPETER".
In some examples of address mimicking, it is unlikely that the In some examples of address mimicking, it is unlikely that the
average user could tell the difference between the real JID and the average user could tell the difference between the real JID and the
fake JID. (Indeed, there is no programmatic way to distinguish with fake JID. (Indeed, there is no programmatic way to distinguish with
full certainty which is the fake JID and which is the real JID; in full certainty which is the fake JID and which is the real JID; in
some communication contexts, the JID formed of Cherokee characters some communication contexts, the JID formed of Cherokee characters
might be the real JID and the JID formed of US-ASCII characters might might be the real JID and the JID formed of US-ASCII characters might
thus appear to be the fake JID.) Because JIDs can contain almost any thus appear to be the fake JID.) Because JIDs can contain almost any
properly-encoded Unicode code point, it can be relatively easy to properly encoded Unicode code point, it can be relatively easy to
mimic some JIDs in XMPP systems. The possibility of address mimic some JIDs in XMPP systems. The possibility of address
mimicking introduces security vulnerabilities of the kind that have mimicking introduces security vulnerabilities of the kind that have
also plagued the World Wide Web, specifically the phenomenon known as also plagued the World Wide Web, specifically the phenomenon known as
phishing. phishing.
These problems arise because Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 repertoires These problems arise because Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 repertoires
have many characters that look similar (so-called "confusable have many characters that look similar (so-called "confusable
characters" or "confusables"). In many cases, XMPP users might characters" or "confusables"). In many cases, XMPP users might
perform visual matching, such as when comparing the JIDs of perform visual matching, such as when comparing the JIDs of
communication partners. Because it is impossible to map similar- communication partners. Because it is impossible to map similar-
skipping to change at page 12, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 28
the problems of confusable characters". Mimicked JIDs that involve the problems of confusable characters". Mimicked JIDs that involve
characters from only one script, or from the script typically characters from only one script, or from the script typically
employed by a particular user or community of language users, are not employed by a particular user or community of language users, are not
easy to combat (e.g., the simple typejacking attack previously easy to combat (e.g., the simple typejacking attack previously
described, which relies on a surface similarity between the described, which relies on a surface similarity between the
characters "1" and "l" in some presentations). However, mimicked characters "1" and "l" in some presentations). However, mimicked
addresses that involve characters from more than one script, or from addresses that involve characters from more than one script, or from
a script not typically employed by a particular user or community of a script not typically employed by a particular user or community of
language users, can be mitigated somewhat through the application of language users, can be mitigated somewhat through the application of
appropriate registration policies at XMPP services and presentation appropriate registration policies at XMPP services and presentation
policies in XMPP client software. Therefore the following policies policies in XMPP client software. Therefore, the following policies
are encouraged: are encouraged:
1. Because an XMPP service that allows registration of XMPP user 1. Because an XMPP service that allows registration of XMPP user
accounts (localparts) plays a role similar to that of a registry accounts (localparts) plays a role similar to that of a registry
for DNS domain names, such a service SHOULD establish a policy for DNS domain names, such a service SHOULD establish a policy
about the scripts or blocks of characters it will allow in about the scripts or blocks of characters it will allow in
localparts at the service. Such a policy is likely to be localparts at the service. Such a policy is likely to be
informed by the languages and scripts that are used to write informed by the languages and scripts that are used to write
registered account names; in particular, to reduce confusion, the registered account names; in particular, to reduce confusion, the
service MAY forbid registration of XMPP localparts that contain service MAY forbid registration of XMPP localparts that contain
skipping to change at page 13, line 29 skipping to change at page 13, line 29
scripts or characters to human users. scripts or characters to human users.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The following sections update the registrations provided in The following sections update the registrations provided in
[RFC3920]. [RFC3920].
5.1. Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep 5.1. Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep
The Nodeprep profile of stringprep is defined under Nodeprep The Nodeprep profile of stringprep is defined under Nodeprep
(Appendix A). The IANA has registered Nodeprep in the stringprep (Appendix A). The IANA has registered Nodeprep in the "Stringprep
profile registry. Profiles" registry.
Name of this profile: Name of this profile:
Nodeprep Nodeprep
RFC in which the profile is defined: RFC in which the profile is defined:
RFC XXXX RFC 6122
Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile: Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:
This is the first version of Nodeprep This is the first version of Nodeprep
5.2. Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep 5.2. Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep
The Resourceprep profile of stringprep is defined under Resourceprep The Resourceprep profile of stringprep is defined under Resourceprep
(Appendix B). The IANA has registered Resourceprep in the stringprep (Appendix B). The IANA has registered Resourceprep in the
profile registry. "Stringprep Profiles" registry.
Name of this profile: Name of this profile:
Resourceprep Resourceprep
RFC in which the profile is defined: RFC in which the profile is defined:
RFC XXXX RFC 6122
Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile: Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:
This is the first version of Resourceprep This is the first version of Resourceprep
6. Conformance Requirements 6. Conformance Requirements
This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the
conformance requirements of this specification. This feature set is conformance requirements of this specification. This feature set is
appropriate for use in software certification, interoperability appropriate for use in software certification, interoperability
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 9
Group in 2005, as captured in [INTEROP]. Although this feature set Group in 2005, as captured in [INTEROP]. Although this feature set
is more detailed than called for by [REPORTS], it provides a suitable is more detailed than called for by [REPORTS], it provides a suitable
basis for the generation of implementation reports to be submitted in basis for the generation of implementation reports to be submitted in
support of advancing this specification from Proposed Standard to support of advancing this specification from Proposed Standard to
Draft Standard in accordance with [PROCESS]. Draft Standard in accordance with [PROCESS].
Feature: address-domain-length Feature: address-domain-length
Description: Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address is at Description: Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address is at
least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length, and least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length, and
conforms to the underlying length limits of the DNS. conforms to the underlying length limits of the DNS.
Section: Section 2.2 Section: Section 2.2
Roles: Both MUST. Roles: Both MUST.
Feature: address-domain-prep Feature: address-domain-prep
Description: Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address conforms Description: Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address conforms
to the Nameprep profile of Stringprep. to the Nameprep profile of stringprep.
Section: Section 2.2 Section: Section 2.2
Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST. Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST.
Feature: address-localpart-length Feature: address-localpart-length
Description: Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address is at Description: Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address is at
least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length. least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length.
Section: Section 2.3 Section: Section 2.3
Roles: Both MUST. Roles: Both MUST.
Feature: address-localpart-prep Feature: address-localpart-prep
Description: Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address conforms Description: Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address conforms
to the Nodeprep profile of Stringprep. to the Nodeprep profile of stringprep.
Section: Section 2.3 Section: Section 2.3
Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST. Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST.
Feature: address-resource-length Feature: address-resource-length
Description: Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address is at Description: Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address is at
least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length. least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length.
Section: Section 2.4 Section: Section 2.4
Roles: Both MUST. Roles: Both MUST.
Feature: address-resource-prep Feature: address-resource-prep
Description: Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address Description: Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address
conforms to the Resourceprep profile of Stringprep. conforms to the Resourceprep profile of stringprep.
Section: Section 2.2 Section: Section 2.4
Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST. Roles: Client SHOULD, Server MUST.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
[DNS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[IDNA2003] [DNS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
See Section 1 for an explanation of why the normative [IDNA2003] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
reference to an obsoleted specification is needed. "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[KEYWORDS] See Section 1 for an explanation of why the
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate normative reference to an obsoleted specification
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. is needed.
[NAMEPREP] [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
RFC 3491, March 2003.
See Section 1 for an explanation of why the normative [NAMEPREP] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A
reference to an obsoleted specification is needed. Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain
Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003.
[STRINGPREP] See Section 1 for an explanation of why the
Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of normative reference to an obsoleted specification
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454, is needed.
December 2002.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version [STRINGPREP] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
3.2.0", 2000. Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")",
RFC 3454, December 2002.
The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2.0 is defined by The [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard,
Unicode Standard, Version 3.0 (Reading, MA, Addison- Version 3.2.0", 2000. The Unicode Standard,
Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5), as amended by the Version 3.2.0 is defined by The Unicode Standard,
Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode 3.1 Version 3.0 (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000.
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the Unicode ISBN 0-201-61633-5), as amended by the Unicode
Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2 Standard Annex #27: Unicode 3.1
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/). (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the
Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).
[UNICODE-SEC] [UNICODE-SEC] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #36: #36: Unicode Security Considerations", 2008,
Unicode Security Considerations", 2008. <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[XMPP] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence [XMPP] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22 (work Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
in progress), December 2010.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[DNSSEC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [DNSSEC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D.,
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and
RFC 4033, March 2005. Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005.
[IDNA-DEFS] [IDNA-DEFS] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", Framework", RFC 5890, August 2010.
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[IDNA-PROTO] [IDNA-PROTO] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891,
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010. August 2010.
[IDNA-RATIONALE] [IDNA-RATIONALE] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.
Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.
[INTEROP] Masinter, L., "Formalizing IETF Interoperability [INTEROP] Masinter, L., "Formalizing IETF Interoperability
Reporting", draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00 (work in Reporting", Work in Progress, October 2005.
progress), October 2005.
[IRI] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource [IRI] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005. Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987,
January 2005.
[PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [PROCESS] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[PUNYCODE] [PUNYCODE] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of
Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.
[REPORTS] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation [REPORTS] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Interoperation and Implementation Reports for
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. Advancement to Draft Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657,
September 2009.
[RFC3920] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence [RFC3920] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004. Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920,
October 2004.
[SASL] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation
Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006. for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
August 2010.
[URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [SASL] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 3986, January 2005. RFC 4422, June 2006.
[XEP-0029] [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
Kaes, C., "Definition of Jabber Identifiers (JIDs)", XSF "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic
XEP 0029, October 2003. Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[XEP-0030] [XEP-0029] Kaes, C., "Definition of Jabber Identifiers
Hildebrand, J., Millard, P., Eatmon, R., and P. Saint- (JIDs)", XSF XEP 0029, October 2003.
Andre, "Service Discovery", XSF XEP 0030, June 2008.
[XEP-0045] [XEP-0030] Hildebrand, J., Millard, P., Eatmon, R., and P.
Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", XSF XEP 0045, Saint-Andre, "Service Discovery", XSF XEP 0030,
July 2008. June 2008.
[XEP-0060] [XEP-0045] Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", XSF XEP 0045,
Millard, P., Saint-Andre, P., and R. Meijer, "Publish- July 2008.
Subscribe", XSF XEP 0060, September 2008.
[XEP-0165] [XEP-0060] Millard, P., Saint-Andre, P., and R. Meijer,
Saint-Andre, P., "Best Practices to Discourage JID "Publish-Subscribe", XSF XEP 0060, July 2010.
Mimicking", XSF XEP 0045, December 2007.
[XML] Paoli, J., Maler, E., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Yergeau, F., [XEP-0165] Saint-Andre, P., "Best Practices to Discourage JID
and T. Bray, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Mimicking", XSF XEP 0045, December 2007.
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20060816, August 2006,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.
[XMPP-URI] [XML] Paoli, J., Maler, E., Sperberg-McQueen, C.,
Saint-Andre, P., "Internationalized Resource Identifiers Yergeau, F., and T. Bray, "Extensible Markup
(IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)", World Wide
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)", Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-20060816,
RFC 5122, February 2008. August 2006,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.
[XMPP-URI] Saint-Andre, P., "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 5122, February 2008.
Appendix A. Nodeprep Appendix A. Nodeprep
A.1. Introduction A.1. Introduction
This appendix defines the "Nodeprep" profile of stringprep. As such, This appendix defines the "Nodeprep" profile of stringprep. As such,
it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter
internationalized localparts in the Extensible Messaging and Presence internationalized localparts in the Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the content of Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the content of
the strings correct. (An XMPP localpart is the optional portion of the strings correct. (An XMPP localpart is the optional portion of
skipping to change at page 19, line 6 skipping to change at page 19, line 26
messaging username.) These processing rules are intended only for messaging username.) These processing rules are intended only for
XMPP localparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any other XMPP localparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any other
aspect of an XMPP address. aspect of an XMPP address.
This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]: This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]:
o The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized o The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized
localparts within XMPP localparts within XMPP
o The character repertoire that is the input and output to o The character repertoire that is the input and output to
stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in Section 2 of this Appendix stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in A.2
o The mappings used: specified in Section 3
o The Unicode normalization used: specified in Section 4 o The mappings used: specified in A.3
o The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in Section
5 o The Unicode normalization used: specified in A.4
o Bidirectional character handling: specified in Section 6
o The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in A.5
o Bidirectional character handling: specified in A.6
A.2. Character Repertoire A.2. Character Repertoire
This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points
being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP]. in Table A.1, both as defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP].
A.3. Mapping A.3. Mapping
This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from
[STRINGPREP]: [STRINGPREP]:
Table B.1 Table B.1
Table B.2 Table B.2
A.4. Normalization A.4. Normalization
This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as This profile specifies the use of Unicode Normalization Form KC, as
described in [STRINGPREP]. described in [STRINGPREP].
A.5. Prohibited Output A.5. Prohibited Output
This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables
from [STRINGPREP]. from [STRINGPREP].
Table C.1.1 Table C.1.1
Table C.1.2 Table C.1.2
Table C.2.1 Table C.2.1
skipping to change at page 20, line 26 skipping to change at page 20, line 46
This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described
in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP]. in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP].
A.7. Notes A.7. Notes
Because the additional characters prohibited by Nodeprep are Because the additional characters prohibited by Nodeprep are
prohibited after normalization, an implementation MUST NOT enable a prohibited after normalization, an implementation MUST NOT enable a
human user to input any Unicode code point whose decomposition human user to input any Unicode code point whose decomposition
includes those characters; such code points include but are not includes those characters; such code points include but are not
necessarily limited to the following (refer to [UNICODE] for complete necessarily limited to the following (refer to [UNICODE] for complete
information). information):
o U+2100 (ACCOUNT OF) o U+2100 (ACCOUNT OF)
o U+2101 (ADDRESSED TO THE SUBJECT) o U+2101 (ADDRESSED TO THE SUBJECT)
o U+2105 (CARE OF) o U+2105 (CARE OF)
o U+2106 (CADA UNA) o U+2106 (CADA UNA)
o U+226E (NOT LESS-THAN) o U+226E (NOT LESS-THAN)
o U+226F (NOT GREATER-THAN) o U+226F (NOT GREATER-THAN)
o U+2A74 (DOUBLE COLON EQUAL) o U+2A74 (DOUBLE COLON EQUAL)
o U+FE13 (SMALL COLON) o U+FE13 (PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL COLON)
o U+FE60 (SMALL AMPERSAND) o U+FE60 (SMALL AMPERSAND)
o U+FE64 (SMALL LESS-THAN SIGN) o U+FE64 (SMALL LESS-THAN SIGN)
o U+FE65 (SMALL GREATER-THAN SIGN) o U+FE65 (SMALL GREATER-THAN SIGN)
o U+FE6B (SMALL COMMERCIAL AT) o U+FE6B (SMALL COMMERCIAL AT)
o U+FF02 (FULLWIDTH QUOTATION MARK) o U+FF02 (FULLWIDTH QUOTATION MARK)
o U+FF06 (FULLWIDTH AMPERSAND) o U+FF06 (FULLWIDTH AMPERSAND)
o U+FF07 (FULLWIDTH APOSTROPHE) o U+FF07 (FULLWIDTH APOSTROPHE)
o U+FF0F (FULLWIDTH SOLIDUS) o U+FF0F (FULLWIDTH SOLIDUS)
o U+FF1A (FULLWIDTH COLON) o U+FF1A (FULLWIDTH COLON)
o U+FF1C (FULLWIDTH LESS-THAN SIGN) o U+FF1C (FULLWIDTH LESS-THAN SIGN)
skipping to change at page 21, line 20 skipping to change at page 21, line 44
content of the strings correct. (An XMPP resourcepart is the content of the strings correct. (An XMPP resourcepart is the
optional portion of an XMPP address that follows an XMPP domainpart optional portion of an XMPP address that follows an XMPP domainpart
and the '/' separator.) These processing rules are intended only for and the '/' separator.) These processing rules are intended only for
XMPP resourceparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any XMPP resourceparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any
other aspect of an XMPP address. other aspect of an XMPP address.
This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]: This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]:
o The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized o The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized
resourceparts within XMPP resourceparts within XMPP
o The character repertoire that is the input and output to o The character repertoire that is the input and output to
stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in Section 2 of this Appendix stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in B.2
o The mappings used: specified in Section 3
o The Unicode normalization used: specified in Section 4 o The mappings used: specified in B.3
o The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in Section
5 o The Unicode normalization used: specified in B.4
o Bidirectional character handling: specified in Section 6
o The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in B.5
o Bidirectional character handling: specified in B.6
B.2. Character Repertoire B.2. Character Repertoire
This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points
being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP]. in Table A.1, both as defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP].
B.3. Mapping B.3. Mapping
This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from
[STRINGPREP]: [STRINGPREP]:
Table B.1 Table B.1
B.4. Normalization B.4. Normalization
This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as This profile specifies the use of Unicode Normalization Form KC, as
described in [STRINGPREP]. described in [STRINGPREP].
B.5. Prohibited Output B.5. Prohibited Output
This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables
from [STRINGPREP]. from [STRINGPREP].
Table C.1.2 Table C.1.2
Table C.2.1 Table C.2.1
Table C.2.2 Table C.2.2
skipping to change at page 22, line 21 skipping to change at page 22, line 44
Table C.6 Table C.6
Table C.7 Table C.7
Table C.8 Table C.8
Table C.9 Table C.9
B.6. Bidirectional Characters B.6. Bidirectional Characters
This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described
in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP]. in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP].
Appendix C. Differences From RFC 3920 Appendix C. Differences from RFC 3920
Based on consensus derived from implementation and deployment Based on consensus derived from implementation and deployment
experience as well as formal interoperability testing, the following experience as well as formal interoperability testing, the following
substantive modifications were made from RFC 3920. substantive modifications were made from RFC 3920.
o Corrected the ABNF syntax to ensure consistency with [URI] and o Corrected the ABNF syntax to ensure consistency with [URI] and
[IRI], including consistency with RFC 3986 and RFC 5952 with [IRI], including consistency with RFC 3986 and [RFC5952] with
regard to IPv6 addresses (e.g., enclosing the IPv6 address in regard to IPv6 addresses (e.g., enclosing the IPv6 address in
square brackets '[' and ']'). square brackets '[' and ']' -- see also Section 4.9.3.19 of
[XMPP]).
o Corrected the ABNF syntax to prevent zero-length localparts, o Corrected the ABNF syntax to prevent zero-length localparts,
domainparts, and resourceparts (and also noted that the underlying domainparts, and resourceparts (and also noted that the underlying
length limits from the DNS apply to domainparts). length limits from the DNS apply to domainparts).
o To avoid confusion with the term "node" as used in [XEP-0030] and o To avoid confusion with the term "node" as used in [XEP-0030] and
[XEP-0060], changed the term "node identifier" to "localpart" (but [XEP-0060], changed the term "node identifier" to "localpart" (but
retained the name "Nodeprep" for backward compatibility). retained the name "Nodeprep" for backward compatibility).
o To avoid confusion with the terms "resource" and "identifier" as o To avoid confusion with the terms "resource" and "identifier" as
used in [URI], changed the term "resource identifier" to used in [URI], changed the term "resource identifier" to
"resourcepart". "resourcepart".
o Corrected the nameprep processing rules to require use of the
o Corrected the Nameprep processing rules to require use of the
UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag. UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag.
Appendix D. Acknowledgements Appendix D. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ben Campbell, Waqas Hussain, Jehan Pages and Florian Zeitz Thanks to Ben Campbell, Waqas Hussain, Jehan Pages, and Florian Zeitz
for their feedback. Thanks also to Richard Barnes and Elwyn Davies for their feedback. Thanks also to Richard Barnes and Elwyn Davies
for their reviews on behalf of the Security Directorate and the for their reviews on behalf of the Security Directorate and the
General Area Review Team, respectively. General Area Review Team, respectively.
The Working Group chairs were Ben Campbell and Joe Hildebrand. The The Working Group chairs were Ben Campbell and Joe Hildebrand. The
responsible Area Director was Gonzalo Camarillo. responsible Area Director was Gonzalo Camarillo.
Some text in this document was borrowed or adapted from [IDNA-DEFS], Some text in this document was borrowed or adapted from [IDNA-DEFS],
[IDNA-PROTO], [IDNA-RATIONALE], and [XEP-0165]. [IDNA-PROTO], [IDNA-RATIONALE], and [XEP-0165].
Author's Address Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco Cisco
1899 Wyknoop Street, Suite 600 1899 Wyknoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202 Denver, CO 80202
USA USA
Phone: +1-303-308-3282 Phone: +1-303-308-3282
Email: psaintan@cisco.com EMail: psaintan@cisco.com
 End of changes. 79 change blocks. 
185 lines changed or deleted 187 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/