-
Internet-Draft Kurt D. Zeilenga
Intended Category: Standard Track OpenLDAP Foundation
-Expires in six months 26 May 2003
+Expires in six months 9 February 2005
LDAP: Internationalized String Preparation
- <draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00.txt>
+ <draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05.txt>
-Status of this Memo
- This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
- provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
+Status of this Memo
+ This document is intended to be published as a Standard Track RFC.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Technical discussion of this
document will take place on the IETF LDAP Revision Working Group
mailing list <ietf-ldapbis@openldap.org>. Please send editorial
- comments directly to the author <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>.
+ comments directly to the editor <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>.
+
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of Section
+ 4 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any
+ applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been
+ disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will
+ be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
- Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
+ 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.''
+ 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>.
+ http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
- Please see the Full Copyright section near the end of this document
- for more information.
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
-Abstract
+ Please see the Full Copyright section near the end of this document
+ for more information.
- The previous Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) technical
- specifications did not precisely define how string matching is to be
- performed. This lead to a number of usability and interoperability
- problems. This document defines string preparation algorithms for
- matching rules defined for use in LDAP.
Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 1]
\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
+Abstract
+
+ The previous Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) technical
+ specifications did not precisely define how character string matching
+ is to be performed. This led to a number of usability and
+ interoperability problems. This document defines string preparation
+ algorithms for character-based matching rules defined for use in LDAP.
-Conventions
+Conventions and Terms
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Information on the Unicode character encoding model can be found in
[CharModel].
+ The term "combining mark", as used in this specification, refers to
+ any Unicode [Unicode] code point which has a mark property (Mn, Mc,
+ Me). Appendix A provides a complete list of combining marks.
+
1. Introduction
Undefined - it cannot be determined whether the attribute contains
a matching value or not.
+
+
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 2]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
For instance, the caseIgnoreMatch matching rule may be used to compare
whether the commonName attribute contains a particular value without
regard for case and insignificant spaces.
"X.520: Selected attribute types" [X.520] provides (amongst other
things) value syntaxes and matching rules for comparing values
commonly used in the Directory. These specifications are inadequate
- for strings composed of characters from the Universal Character Set
- (UCS) [ISO10646], a superset of Unicode [Unicode].
-
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 2]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
+ for strings composed of Unicode [Unicode] characters.
The caseIgnoreMatch matching rule [X.520], for example, is simply
defined as being a case insensitive comparison where insignificant
spaces are ignored. For printableString, there is only one space
character and case mapping is bijective, hence this definition is
- sufficient. However, for UCS-based string types such as
+ sufficient. However, for Unicode string types such as
universalString, this is not sufficient. For example, a case
insensitive matching implementation which folded lower case characters
to upper case would yield different different results than an
(Zs) property as a space, and another implementation may view any
character with the whitespace (WS) category as a space.
- The lack of precise specification for string matching has led to
- significant interoperability problems. When used in certificate chain
- validation, security vulnerabilities can arise. To address these
- problems, this document defines precise algorithms for preparing
- strings for matching.
+ The lack of precise specification for character string matching has
+ led to significant interoperability problems. When used in
+ certificate chain validation, security vulnerabilities can arise. To
+ address these problems, this document defines precise algorithms for
+ preparing character strings for matching.
1.3. Relationship to "stringprep"
- The string preparation algorithms described in this document are based
- upon the "stringprep" approach [RFC3454]. In "stringprep", presented
- and stored values are first prepared for comparison and so that a
- character-by-character comparison yields the "correct" result.
+ The character string preparation algorithms described in this document
+ are based upon the "stringprep" approach [StringPrep]. In
+ "stringprep", presented and stored values are first prepared for
+ comparison and so that a character-by-character comparison yields the
+ "correct" result.
- The approach used here is a refinement of the "stringprep" [RFC3454]
- approach. Each algorithm involves two additional preparation steps.
+ The approach used here is a refinement of the "stringprep"
+ [StringPrep] approach. Each algorithm involves two additional
+ preparation steps.
a) prior to applying the Unicode string preparation steps outlined in
"stringprep", the string is transcoded to Unicode;
+
+
+
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 3]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
b) after applying the Unicode string preparation steps outlined in
- "stringprep", characters insignificant to the matching rules are
- removed.
+ "stringprep", the string is modified to appropriately handle
+ characters insignificant to the matching rule.
- Hence, preparation of strings for X.500 matching involves the
- following steps:
+ Hence, preparation of character strings for X.500 matching involves
+ the following steps:
1) Transcode
2) Map
3) Normalize
4) Prohibit
5) Check Bidi (Bidirectional)
- 6) Insignificant Character Removal
-
-
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 3]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
+ 6) Insignificant Character Handling
These steps are described in Section 2.
[Roadmap] which obsoletes the previously defined LDAP technical
specification [RFC3377] in its entirety.
- This document details new LDAP internationalized string preparation
- algorithms used by [Syntaxes] and possible other technical
+ This document details new LDAP internationalized character string
+ preparation algorithms used by [Syntaxes] and possible other technical
specifications defining LDAP syntaxes and/or matching rules.
LDAP is defined [Roadmap] in X.500 terms as an X.500 access mechanism.
As such, there is a strong desire for alignment between LDAP and X.500
- syntax and semantics. The string preparation algorithms described in
- this document are based upon "Internationalized String Matching Rules
- for X.500" [XMATCH] proposal to ITU/ISO Joint Study Group 2.
+ syntax and semantics. The character string preparation algorithms
+ described in this document are based upon "Internationalized String
+ Matching Rules for X.500" [XMATCH] proposal to ITU/ISO Joint Study
+ Group 2.
2. String Preparation
The following six-step process SHALL be applied to each presented and
- attribute value in preparation for string match rule evaluation.
+ attribute value in preparation for character string matching rule
+ evaluation.
1) Transcode
2) Map
3) Normalize
4) Prohibit
- 5) Check bidi
- 6) Insignificant Character Removal
- Failure in any step is be cause the assertion to be Undefined.
- The character repertoire of this process is Unicode 3.2 [Unicode].
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 4]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
-2.1. Transcode
- Each non-Unicode string value is transcoded to Unicode.
+ 5) Check bidi
+ 6) Insignificant Character Handling
- TeletexString [X.680][T.61] values are transcoded to Unicode as
- described in Appendix A.
+ Failure in any step causes the assertion to evaluate to Undefined.
- PrintableString [X.680] value are transcoded directly to Unicode.
+ The character repertoire of this process is Unicode 3.2 [Unicode].
+2.1. Transcode
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 4]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
+ Each non-Unicode string value is transcoded to Unicode.
+ PrintableString [X.680] value are transcoded directly to Unicode.
UniversalString, UTF8String, and bmpString [X.680] values need not be
transcoded as they are Unicode-based strings (in the case of
bmpString, a subset of Unicode).
- If the implementation is unable or unwilling to perform the
- transcoding as described above, or the transcoding fails, this step
- fails and the assertion is evaluated to Undefined.
+ TeletexString [X.680] values are transcoded to Unicode. As there is
+ no standard for mapping TelexString values to Unicode, the mapping is
+ left a local matter.
+
+ For these and other reasons, use of TeletexString is NOT RECOMMENDED.
- The transcoded string is the output string.
+ The output is the transcoded string.
2.2. Map
SOFT HYPHEN (U+00AD) and MONGOLIAN TODO SOFT HYPHEN (U+1806) code
points are mapped to nothing. COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER (U+034F) and
- VARIATION SELECTORs (U+180B-180D,FF00-FE0F) code points are also
+ VARIATION SELECTORs (U+180B-180D, FF00-FE0F) code points are also
mapped to nothing. The OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER (U+FFFC) is
mapped to nothing.
TABULATION (U+000B), FORM FEED (FF) (U+000C), CARRIAGE RETURN (CR)
(U+000D), and NEXT LINE (NEL) (U+0085) are mapped to SPACE (U+0020).
- All other control code points (e.g., Cc) or code points with a control
- function (e.g., Cf) are mapped to nothing.
+ All other control code (e.g., Cc) points or code points with a control
+ function (e.g., Cf) are mapped to nothing. The following is a
+ complete list of these code points: U+0000-0008, 000E-001F, 007F-0084,
+ 0086-009F, 06DD, 070F, 180E, 200C-200F, 202A-202E, 2060-2063,
+ 206A-206F, FEFF, FFF9-FFFB, 1D173-1D17A, E0001, E0020-E007F.
ZERO WIDTH SPACE (U+200B) is mapped to nothing. All other code points
with Separator (space, line, or paragraph) property (e.g, Zs, Zl, or
- Zp) are mapped to SPACE (U+0020).
+ Zp) are mapped to SPACE (U+0020). The following is a complete list of
+
+
+
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 5]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
+ these code points: U+0020, 00A0, 1680, 2000-200A, 2028-2029, 202F,
+ 205F, 3000.
For case ignore, numeric, and stored prefix string matching rules,
- characters are case folded per B.2 of [RFC3454].
+ characters are case folded per B.2 of [StringPrep].
+
+ The output is the mapped string.
2.3. Normalize
The input string is be normalized to Unicode Form KC (compatibility
- composed) as described in [UAX15].
+ composed) as described in [UAX15]. The output is the normalized
+ string.
2.4. Prohibit
- All Unassigned, Private Use, and non-character code points are
- prohibited. Surrogate codes (U+D800-DFFFF) are prohibited.
+ All Unassigned code points are prohibited. Unassigned code points are
+ listed in Table A.1 of [StringPrep].
- The REPLACEMENT CHARACTER (U+FFFD) code point is prohibited.
+ Characters which, per Section 5.8 of [Stringprep], change display
+ properties or are deprecated are prohibited. These characters are are
+ listed in Table C.8 of [StringPrep].
- The first code point of a string is prohibited from being a combining
+ Private Use code points are prohibited. These characters are listed
+ in Table C.3 of [StringPrep].
+ All non-character code points are prohibited. These code points are
+ listed in Table C.4 of [StringPrep].
+ Surrogate codes are prohibited. These characters are listed in Table
+ C.5 of [StringPrep].
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 5]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
+ The REPLACEMENT CHARACTER (U+FFFD) code point is prohibited.
+ The step fails if the input string contains any prohibited code point.
+ Otherwise, the output is the input string.
- character.
- Empty strings are prohibited.
+2.5. Check bidi
- The step fails and the assertion is evaluated to Undefined if the
- input string contains any prohibited code point. The output string is
- the input string.
+ Bidirectional characters are ignored.
-2.5. Check bidi
+2.6. Insignificant Character Handling
- There are no bidirectional restrictions. The output string is the
- input string.
+ In this step, the string is modified to ensure proper handling of
-2.5. Insignificant Character Removal
- In this step, characters insignificant to the matching rule are to be
- removed. The characters to be removed differ from matching rule to
- matching rule.
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 6]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
+ characters insignificant to the matching rule. This modification
+ differs from matching rule to matching rule.
Section 2.6.1 applies to case ignore and exact string matching.
Section 2.6.2 applies to numericString matching.
- Section 2.6.3 applies to telephoneNumber matching
+ Section 2.6.3 applies to telephoneNumber matching.
-2.6.1. Insignificant Space Removal
+2.6.1. Insignificant Space Handling
For the purposes of this section, a space is defined to be the SPACE
(U+0020) code point followed by no combining marks.
NOTE - The previous steps ensure that the string cannot contain any
code points in the separator class, other than SPACE (U+0020).
- The following spaces are regarded as not significant and are to be
- removed:
- - leading spaces (i.e. those preceding the first character that is
- not a space);
- - trailing spaces (i.e. those following the last character that is
- not a space);
- - multiple consecutive spaces (these are taken as equivalent to a
- single space character).
+ If the input string contains at least one non-space character, then
+ the string is modified such that the string starts with exactly one
+ space character, ends with exactly one SPACE character, and that any
+ inner (non-empty) sequence of space characters is replaced with
+ exactly two SPACE characters. For instance, the input strings
+ "foo<SPACE>bar<SPACE><SPACE>", results in the output
+ "<SPACE>foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar<SPACE>".
- A string consisting entirely of spaces is equivalent to a string
- containing exactly one space.
+ Otherwise, if the string being prepared is an initial, any, or final
+ substring, then the output string is exactly one SPACE character, else
+ the output string is exactly two SPACEs.
- For example, removal of spaces from the Form KC string:
- "<SPACE><SPACE>foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar<SPACE><SPACE>"
+ Appendix B discusses the rationale for the behavior.
+2.6.2. numericString Insignificant Character Handling
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 6]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
+ For the purposes of this section, a space is defined to be the SPACE
+ (U+0020) code point followed by no combining marks.
+ All spaces are regarded as insignificant and are to be removed.
+ For example, removal of spaces from the Form KC string:
+ "<SPACE><SPACE>123<SPACE><SPACE>456<SPACE><SPACE>"
would result in the output string:
- "foo<SPACE>bar"
+ "123456"
and the Form KC string:
"<SPACE><SPACE><SPACE>"
would result in the output string:
- "<SPACE>".
+ "" (an empty string).
-2.6.2. numericString Insignificant Character Removal
- For the purposes of this section, a space is defined to be the SPACE
- (U+0020) code point followed by no combining marks.
- All spaces are regarded as not significant and are to be removed.
- For example, removal of spaces from the Form KC string:
- "<SPACE><SPACE>123<SPACE><SPACE>456<SPACE><SPACE>" would result in
- the output string:
- "123456"
- and the Form KC string:
- "<SPACE><SPACE><SPACE>"
- would result in an empty output string.
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 7]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
-2.6.3. telephoneNumber Insignificant Character Removal
+2.6.3. telephoneNumber Insignificant Character Handling
For the purposes of this section, a hyphen is defined to be
HYPHEN-MINUS (U+002D), ARMENIAN HYPHEN (U+058A), HYPHEN (U+2010),
combining marks and a space is defined to be the SPACE (U+0020) code
point followed by no combining marks.
- All hyphens and spaces are regarded as not significant and are to be
+ All hyphens and spaces are considered insignificant and are to be
removed.
+ For example, removal of hyphens and spaces from the Form KC string:
+ "<SPACE><HYPHEN>123<SPACE><SPACE>456<SPACE><HYPHEN>"
+ would result in the output string:
+ "123456"
+ and the Form KC string:
+ "<HYPHEN><HYPHEN><HYPHEN>"
+ would result in the (empty) output string:
+ "".
+
3. Security Considerations
- "Preparation for International Strings ('stringprep')" [RFC3454]
+ "Preparation for International Strings ('stringprep')" [StringPrep]
security considerations generally apply to the algorithms described
here.
-4. Contributors
+4. Acknowledgments
- Appendix A and B of this document were authored by Howard Chu
- <hyc@symas.com> of Symas Corporation (based upon information provided
+ The approach used in this document is based upon design principles and
+ algorithms described in "Preparation of Internationalized Strings
+ ('stringprep')" [StringPrep] by Paul Hoffman and Marc Blanchet. Some
+ additional guidance was drawn from Unicode Technical Standards,
+ Technical Reports, and Notes.
+ This document is a product of the IETF LDAP Revision (LDAPBIS) Working
+ Group.
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 7]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
+5. Author's Address
+ Kurt D. Zeilenga
+ OpenLDAP Foundation
- in RFC 1345).
+ Email: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org
-5. Acknowledgments
- The approach used in this document is based upon design principles and
- algorithms described in "Preparation of Internationalized Strings
- ('stringprep')" [RFC3454] by Paul Hoffman and Marc Blanchet. Some
- additional guidance was drawn from Unicode Technical Standards,
- Technical Reports, and Notes.
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 8]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
-6. Author's Address
- Kurt Zeilenga
- E-mail: <kurt@openldap.org>
+6. References
+ [[Note to the RFC Editor: please replace the citation tags used in
+ referencing Internet-Drafts with tags of the form RFCnnnn where
+ possible.]]
-7. References
-7.1. Normative References
+6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14 (also RFC 2119), March 1997.
- [RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
- Internationalized Strings ('stringprep')", RFC 3454,
- December 2002.
-
[Roadmap] Zeilenga, K. (editor), "LDAP: Technical Specification
Road Map", draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap-xx.txt, a work in
progress.
+ [StringPrep] Hoffman P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
+ Internationalized Strings ('stringprep')",
+ draft-hoffman-rfc3454bis-xx.txt, a work in progress.
+
[Syntaxes] Legg, S. (editor), "LDAP: Syntaxes and Matching Rules",
draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes-xx.txt, a work in progress.
- [ISO10646] International Organization for Standardization,
- "Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -
- Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane", ISO/IEC
- 10646-1 : 1993.
-
[Unicode] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
3.2.0" is defined by "The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0"
(Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5),
"Unicode Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2"
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 8]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
[UAX15] Davis, M. and M. Duerst, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms, Version 3.2.0".
<http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/tr15-22.html>,
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) - Specification of Basic
Notation", X.680(1997) (also ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998).
- [T.61] CCITT (now ITU), "Character Repertoire and Coded
- Character Sets for the International Teletex Service",
- T.61, 1988.
-7.2. Informative References
+6.2. Informative References
[X.500] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory
-- Overview of concepts, models and services,"
X.500(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-1:1994).
+
+
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 9]
+\f
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
[X.501] International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, "The Directory
-- Models," X.501(1993) (also ISO/IEC 9594-2:1994).
2000.
[XMATCH] Zeilenga, K., "Internationalized String Matching Rules
- for X.500", draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-strmatch-xx.txt a
+ for X.500", draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-strmatch-xx.txt, a
work in progress.
[RFC1345] Simonsen, K., "Character Mnemonics & Character Sets",
RFC 1345, June 1992.
-Appendix A. Teletex (T.61) to Unicode
+Appendix A. Combining Marks
+ This appendix is normative.
+ 0300-034F 0360-036F 0483-0486 0488-0489 0591-05A1 05A3-05B9 05BB-05BC
+ 05BF 05C1-05C2 05C4 064B-0655 0670 06D6-06DC 06DE-06E4 06E7-06E8
+ 06EA-06ED 0711 0730-074A 07A6-07B0 0901-0903 093C 093E-094F 0951-0954
+ 0962-0963 0981-0983 09BC 09BE-09C4 09C7-09C8 09CB-09CD 09D7 09E2-09E3
+ 0A02 0A3C 0A3E-0A42 0A47-0A48 0A4B-0A4D 0A70-0A71 0A81-0A83 0ABC
+ 0ABE-0AC5 0AC7-0AC9 0ACB-0ACD 0B01-0B03 0B3C 0B3E-0B43 0B47-0B48
+ 0B4B-0B4D 0B56-0B57 0B82 0BBE-0BC2 0BC6-0BC8 0BCA-0BCD 0BD7 0C01-0C03
+ 0C3E-0C44 0C46-0C48 0C4A-0C4D 0C55-0C56 0C82-0C83 0CBE-0CC4 0CC6-0CC8
+ 0CCA-0CCD 0CD5-0CD6 0D02-0D03 0D3E-0D43 0D46-0D48 0D4A-0D4D 0D57
+ 0D82-0D83 0DCA 0DCF-0DD4 0DD6 0DD8-0DDF 0DF2-0DF3 0E31 0E34-0E3A
+ 0E47-0E4E 0EB1 0EB4-0EB9 0EBB-0EBC 0EC8-0ECD 0F18-0F19 0F35 0F37 0F39
+ 0F3E-0F3F 0F71-0F84 0F86-0F87 0F90-0F97 0F99-0FBC 0FC6 102C-1032
+ 1036-1039 1056-1059 1712-1714 1732-1734 1752-1753 1772-1773 17B4-17D3
+ 180B-180D 18A9 20D0-20EA 302A-302F 3099-309A FB1E FE00-FE0F FE20-FE23
+ 1D165-1D169 1D16D-1D172 1D17B-1D182 1D185-1D18B 1D1AA-1D1AD
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 9]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
- This appendix defines an algorithm for transcoding [T.61] characters
- to [Unicode] characters for use in string preparation for LDAP
- matching rules. This appendix is a normative.
-
- The transcoding algorithm is derived from the T.61-8bit definition
- provided in [RFC1345]. With a few exceptions, the T.61 character
- codes from x00 to x7f are equivalent to the corresponding [Unicode]
- code points, and their values are left unchanged by this algorithm.
- E.g. the T.61 code x20 is identical to (U+0020). The exceptions are
- for these T.61 codes that are undefined: x23, x24, x5c, x5e, x60, x7b,
- x7d, and x7e.
-
- The codes from x80 to x9f are also equivalent to the corresponding
- Unicode code points. This is specified for completeness only, as
- these codes are control characters, and will be mapped to nothing in
- the LDAP String Preparation Mapping step.
-
- The remaining T.61 codes are mapped below in Table A.1. Table
- positions marked "??" are undefined.
-
- Input strings containing undefined T.61 codes SHALL produce an
- Undefined matching result. For diagnostic purposes, this algorithm
- does not fail for undefined input codes. Instead, undefined codes in
- the input are mapped to the Unicode REPLACEMENT CHARACTER (U+FFFD).
- As the LDAP String Preparation Probhibit step disallows the
- REPLACEMENT CHARACTER from appearing in its output, this transcoding
- yields the desired effect.
-
- Note: RFC 1345 listed the non-spacing accent codepoints as residing in
- the range starting at (U+E000). In the current Unicode
- standard, the (U+E000) range is reserved for Private Use, and
- the non-spacing accents are in the range starting at (U+0300).
- The tables here use the (U+0300) range for these accents.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- a0| 00a0 | 00a1 | 00a2 | 00a3 | 0024 | 00a5 | 0023 | 00a7 |
- a8| 00a8 | ?? | ?? | 00ab | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- b0| 00b0 | 00b1 | 00b2 | 00b3 | 00d7 | 00b5 | 00b6 | 00b7 |
- b8| 00f7 | ?? | ?? | 00bb | 00bc | 00bd | 00be | 00bf |
- c0| ?? | 0300 | 0301 | 0302 | 0303 | 0304 | 0306 | 0307 |
- c8| 0308 | ?? | 030a | 0327 | 0332 | 030b | 0328 | 030c |
- d0| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- d8| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- e0| 2126 | 00c6 | 00d0 | 00aa | ?? | 0126 | 0132 | 013f |
- e8| 0141 | 00d8 | 0152 | 00ba | 00de | 0166 | 014a | 0149 |
- f0| 0138 | 00e6 | 0111 | 00f0 | 0127 | 0131 | 0133 | 0140 |
- f8| 0142 | 00f8 | 0153 | 00df | 00fe | 0167 | 014b | ?? |
+
+Appendix B. Substrings Matching
Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 10]
\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table A.1: Mapping of 8-bit T.61 codes to Unicode
-
- T.61 also defines a number of accented characters that are formed by
- combining an accent prefix followed by a base character. These
- prefixes are in the code range xc1 to xcf. If a prefix character
- appears at the end of a string, the result is undefined. Otherwise
- these sequences are mapped to Unicode by substituting the
- corresponding non-spacing accent code (as listed in Table A.1) for the
- accent prefix, and exchanging the order so that the base character
- precedes the accent.
-
-
-Appendix B. Additional Teletex (T.61) to Unicode Tables
-
- All of the accented characters in T.61 have a corresponding code point
- in Unicode. For the sake of completeness, the combined character
- codes are presented in the following tables. This is informational
- only; for matching purposes it is sufficient to map the non-spacing
- accent and exchange the order of the character pair as specified in
- Appendix A.
-
-
-B.1. Combinations with SPACE
-
- Accents may be combined with a <SPACE> to generate the accent by
- itself. For each accent code, the result of combining with <SPACE> is
- listed in Table B.1.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- c0| ?? | 0060 | 00b4 | 005e | 007e | 00af | 02d8 | 02d9 |
- c8| 00a8 | ?? | 02da | 00b8 | ?? | 02dd | 02db | 02c7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.1: Mapping of T.61 Accents with <SPACE> to Unicode
-
-
-B.2. Combinations for xc1: (Grave accent)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, E, I, O, and
- U. Unicode also defines combinations for N, W, and Y. All of these
- combinations are present in Table B.2.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c0 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00c8 | ?? | ?? |
- 48| ?? | 00cc | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 01f8 | 00d2 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00d9 | ?? | 1e80 |
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
+ In absence of substrings matching, the insignificant space handling
+ for case ignore/exact matching could be simplified. Specifically,
+ the handling could be as require all sequences of one or more spaces
+ be replaced with one space and, if string contains non-space
+ characters, removal of all all leading spaces and trailing spaces.
+
+ In the presence of substrings matching, this simplified space handling
+ this simplified space handling would lead to unexpected and
+ undesirable matching behavior. For instance:
+ 1) (CN=foo\20*\20bar) would match the CN value "foobar" but not
+ "foo<SPACE>bar" nor "foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar";
+ 2) (CN=*\20foobar\20*) would match "foobar", but (CN=*\20*foobar*\20*)
+ would not;
+ 3) (CN=foo\20*\20bar) would match "foo<SPACE>X<SPACE>bar" but not
+ "foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar".
+
+ The first case illustrates that this simplified space handling would
+ cause leading and trailing spaces in substrings of the string to be
+ regarded as insignificant. However, only leading and trailing (as
+ well as multiple consecutive spaces) of the string (as a whole) are
+ insignificant.
+
+ The second case illustrates that this simplified space handling would
+ cause sub-partitioning failures. That is, if a prepared any substring
+ matches a partition of the attribute value, then an assertion
+ constructed by subdividing that substring into multiple substrings
+ should also match.
+
+ The third case illustrates that this simplified space handling causes
+ another partitioning failure. Though both the initial or final
+ strings match different portions of "foo<SPACE>X<SPACE>bar" with
+ neither matching the X portion, they don't match a string consisting
+ of the two matched portions less the unmatched X portion.
+
+ In designing an appropriate approach for space handling for substrings
+ matching, one must study key aspects of X.500 case exact/ignore
+ matching. X.520 [X.520] says:
+ The [substrings] rule returns TRUE if there is a partitioning of
+ the attribute value (into portions) such that:
+ - the specified substrings (initial, any, final) match different
+ portions of the value in the order of the strings sequence;
+ - initial, if present, matches the first portion of the value;
+ - final, if present, matches the last portion of the value;
+ - any, if present, matches some arbitrary portion of the value.
+
+ That is, the substrings assertion (CN=foo\20*\20bar) matches the
+ attribute value "foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar" as the value can be partitioned
+ into the portions "foo<SPACE>" and "<SPACE>bar" meeting the above
Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 11]
\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
- 58| ?? | 1ef2 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e0 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00e8 | ?? | ?? |
- 68| ?? | 00ec | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 01f9 | 00f2 |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00f9 | ?? | 1e81 |
- 78| ?? | 1ef3 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.2: Mapping of T.61 Grave Accent Combinations
-
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
+
+
+ requirements.
+
+ X.520 also says:
+ [T]he following spaces are regarded as not significant:
+ - leading spaces (i.e. those preceding the first character that is
+ not a space);
+ - trailing spaces (i.e. those following the last character that is
+ not a space);
+ - multiple consecutive spaces (these are taken as equivalent to a
+ single space character).
+
+ This statement applies to the assertion values and attribute values
+ as whole strings, and not individually to substrings of an assertion
+ value. In particular, the statements should be taken to mean that
+ if an assertion value and attribute value match without any
+ consideration to insignificant characters, then that assertion value
+ should also match any attribute value which differs only by inclusion
+ or removal of insignificant characters.
+
+ Hence, the assertion (CN=foo\20*\20bar) matches
+ "foo<SPACE><SPACE><SPACE>bar" and "foo<SPACE>bar" as these values
+ only differ from "foo<SPACE><SPACE>bar" by the inclusion or removal
+ of insignificant spaces.
+
+ Astute readers of this text will also note that there are special
+ cases where the specified space handling does not ignore spaces
+ which could be considered insignificant. For instance, the assertion
+ (CN=\20*\20*\20) does not match "<SPACE><SPACE><SPACE>"
+ (insignificant spaces present in value) nor " " (insignificant
+ spaces not present in value). However, as these cases have no
+ practical application that cannot be met by simple assertions, e.g.
+ (cn=\20), and this minor anomaly can only be fully addressed by a
+ preparation algorithm to be used in conjunction with
+ character-by-character partitioning and matching, the anomaly is
+ considered acceptable.
-B.3. Combinations for xc2: (Acute accent)
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, E, I, O, U, Y,
- C, L, N, R, S, and Z. Unicode also defines G, K, M, P, and W. All of
- these combinations are present in Table B.3.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c1 | ?? | 0106 | ?? | 00c9 | ?? | 01f4 |
- 48| ?? | 00cd | ?? | 1e30 | 0139 | 1e3e | 0143 | 00d3 |
- 50| 1e54 | ?? | 0154 | 015a | ?? | 00da | ?? | 1e82 |
- 58| ?? | 00dd | 0179 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e1 | ?? | 0107 | ?? | 00e9 | ?? | 01f5 |
- 68| ?? | 00ed | ?? | 1e31 | 013a | 1e3f | 0144 | 00f3 |
- 70| 1e55 | ?? | 0155 | 015b | ?? | 00fa | ?? | 1e83 |
- 78| ?? | 00fd | 017a | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.3: Mapping of T.61 Acute Accent Combinations
-
-
-B.4. Combinations for xc3: (Circumflex)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, E, I, O, U, Y,
- C, G, H, J, S, and W. Unicode also defines the combination for Z.
- All of these combinations are present in Table B.4.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c2 | ?? | 0108 | ?? | 00ca | ?? | 011c |
- 48| 0124 | 00ce | 0134 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00d4 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | 015c | ?? | 00db | ?? | 0174 |
- 58| ?? | 0176 | 1e90 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e2 | ?? | 0109 | ?? | 00ea | ?? | 011d |
- 68| 0125 | 00ee | 0135 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00f4 |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | 015d | ?? | 00fb | ?? | 0175 |
- 78| ?? | 0177 | 1e91 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.4: Mapping of T.61 Circumflex Accent Combinations
+Intellectual Property Rights
+ 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.
Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 12]
\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
-B.5. Combinations for xc4: (Tilde)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, I, O, U, and
- N. Unicode also defines E, V, and Y. All of these combinations are
- present in Table B.5.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c3 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 1ebc | ?? | ?? |
- 48| ?? | 0128 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00d1 | 00d5 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0168 | 1e7c | ?? |
- 58| ?? | 1ef8 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e3 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 1ebd | ?? | ?? |
- 68| ?? | 0129 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00f1 | 00f5 |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0169 | 1e7d | ?? |
- 78| ?? | 1ef9 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.5: Mapping of T.61 Tilde Accent Combinations
-
-
-B.6. Combinations for xc5: (Macron)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, E, I, O, and
- U. Unicode also defines Y, G, and AE. All of these combinations are
- present in Table B.6.
+Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-05 9 February 2005
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 0100 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0112 | ?? | 1e20 |
- 48| ?? | 012a | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 014c |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016a | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | 0232 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 0101 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0113 | ?? | 1e21 |
- 68| ?? | 012b | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 014d |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016b | ?? | ?? |
- 78| ?? | 0233 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- e0| ?? | 01e2 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- f0| ?? | 01e3 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.6: Mapping of T.61 Macron Accent Combinations
+ 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.
-B.7. Combinations for xc6: (Breve)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for combinations with A, U, and G.
- Unicode also defines E, I, and O. All of these combinations are
- present in Table B.7.
-
-
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 13]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 0102 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0114 | ?? | 011e |
- 48| ?? | 012c | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 014e |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016c | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 0103 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0115 | ?? | 011f |
- 68| ?? | 012d | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00f1 | 014f |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016d | ?? | ?? |
- 78| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.7: Mapping of T.61 Breve Accent Combinations
-
-
-B.8. Combinations for xc7: (Dot Above)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for C, E, G, I, and Z. Unicode also
- defines A, O, B, D, F, H, M, N, P, R, S, T, W, X, and Y. All of these
- combinations are present in Table B.8.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 0226 | 1e02 | 010a | 1e0a | 0116 | 1e1e | 0120 |
- 48| 1e22 | 0130 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 1e40 | 1e44 | 022e |
- 50| 1e56 | ?? | 1e58 | 1e60 | 1e6a | ?? | ?? | 1e86 |
- 58| 1e8a | 1e8e | 017b | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 0227 | 1e03 | 010b | 1e0b | 0117 | 1e1f | 0121 |
- 68| 1e23 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 1e41 | 1e45 | 022f |
- 70| 1e57 | ?? | 1e59 | 1e61 | 1e6b | ?? | ?? | 1e87 |
- 78| 1e8b | 1e8f | 017c | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.8: Mapping of T.61 Dot Above Accent Combinations
-
-
-B.9. Combinations for xc8: (Diaeresis)
-
- T.61 has predefined characters for A, E, I, O, U, and Y. Unicode also
- defines H, W, X, and t. All of these combinations are present in
- Table B.9.
-
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c4 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00cb | ?? | ?? |
- 48| 1e26 | 00cf | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00d6 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00dc | ?? | 1e84 |
- 58| 1e8c | 0178 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e4 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00eb | ?? | ?? |
- 68| 1e27 | 00ef | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 00f6 |
-
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 14]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
+ 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.
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 1e97 | 00fc | ?? | 1e85 |
- 78| 1e8d | 00ff | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.8: Mapping of T.61 Diaeresis Accent Combinations
-B.10. Combinations for xca: (Ring Above)
+Full Copyright
- T.61 has predefined characters for A, and U. Unicode also defines w
- and y. All of these combinations are present in Table B.10.
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 00c5 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 48| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016e | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 00e5 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 68| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 016f | ?? | 1e98 |
- 78| ?? | 1e99 | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.10: Mapping of T.61 Ring Above Accent Combinations
+ 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.
-B.11. Combinations for xcb: (Cedilla)
- T.61 has predefined characters for C, G, K, L, N, R, S, and T.
- Unicode also defines E, D, and H. All of these combinations are
- present in Table B.11.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | ?? | ?? | 00c7 | 1e10 | 0228 | ?? | 0122 |
- 48| 1e28 | ?? | ?? | 0136 | 013b | ?? | 0145 | ?? |
- 50| ?? | ?? | 0156 | 015e | 0162 | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | ?? | ?? | 00e7 | 1e11 | 0229 | ?? | 0123 |
- 68| 1e29 | ?? | ?? | 0137 | 013c | ?? | 0146 | ?? |
- 70| ?? | ?? | 0157 | 015f | 0163 | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 78| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.11: Mapping of T.61 Cedilla Accent Combinations
-B.12. Combinations for xcd: (Double Acute Accent)
- T.61 has predefined characters for O, and U. These combinations are
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 15]
-\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
- present in Table B.12.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 48| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0150 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0170 | ?? | ?? |
- 68| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0151 |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0171 | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.12: Mapping of T.61 Double Acute Accent Combinations
-B.13. Combinations for xce: (Ogonek)
- T.61 has predefined characters for A, E, I, and U. Unicode also
- defines the combination for O. All of these combinations are present
- in Table B.13.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 0104 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0118 | ?? | ?? |
- 48| ?? | 012e | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 01ea |
- 50| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0172 | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 0105 | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0119 | ?? | ?? |
- 68| ?? | 012f | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 01eb |
- 70| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | 0173 | ?? | ?? |
- 78| ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.13: Mapping of T.61 Ogonek Accent Combinations
-B.14. Combinations for xcf: (Caron)
- T.61 has predefined characters for C, D, E, L, N, R, S, T, and Z.
- Unicode also defines A, I, O, U, G, H, j,and K. All of these
- combinations are present in Table B.14.
- | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- 40| ?? | 01cd | ?? | 010c | 010e | 011a | ?? | 01e6 |
- 48| 021e | 01cf | ?? | 01e8 | 013d | ?? | 0147 | 01d1 |
- 50| ?? | ?? | 0158 | 0160 | 0164 | 01d3 | ?? | ?? |
- 58| ?? | ?? | 017d | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
- 60| ?? | 01ce | ?? | 010d | 010f | 011b | ?? | 01e7 |
- 68| 021f | 01d0 | 01f0 | 01e9 | 013e | ?? | 0148 | 01d2 |
- 70| ?? | ?? | 0159 | 0161 | 0165 | 01d4 | ?? | ?? |
- 78| ?? | ?? | 017e | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? | ?? |
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 16]
+Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 13]
\f
-Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ldapbis-strprep-00 26 May 2003
-
-
- --+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
- Table B.14: Mapping of T.61 Caron Accent Combinations
-
-
-
-Intellectual Property Rights
-
- The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
- intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
- to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
- document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
- might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
- effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
- procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
- standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
- claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
- licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
- obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary
- rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
- from the IETF Secretariat.
-
- The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
- copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
- rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
- Director.
-
-
-
-Full Copyright
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
-
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
- others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
- or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
- distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
- provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
- included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
- document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
- the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
- Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
- developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
- copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed,
- or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
-
-
-
-
-
-Zeilenga LDAPprep [Page 17]
-\f
projects / openldap / blobdiff