[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

DISPATCH Working Group                                        C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track                           July 08, 2019
Expires: January 9, 2020


                         Modern Network Unicode
            draft-bormann-dispatch-modern-network-unicode-02

Abstract

   RFC 5198 both defines common conventions for the use of Unicode in
   network protocols and caters for the specific requirements of the
   legacy protocol Telnet.  In applications that do not need Telnet
   compatibility, some of the decisions of RFC 5198 are cumbersome.

   The present specification defines "Modern Network Unicode" (MNU),
   which is a form of RFC 5198 Network Unicode that can be used in
   specifications that require the exchange of plain text over networks
   and where just mandating UTF-8 (RFC 3629) may not be sufficient, but
   there is also no desire to import all of the baggage of RFC 5198.

   In addition to a basic "Clean Modern Network Unicode" (CMNU), this
   specification defines a number of variances that can be used to
   tailor MNU to specific areas of application.  In particular, "Modern
   Network Unicode with lines" can be used in applications that require
   line-structured text such as plain text documents or markdown format.

Status

   The present version of this document represents the author's reaction
   to initial exposure on the art@ietf.org mailing list.  Some more
   editorial cleanup is probably desirable, but could not be achieved in
   time for the IETF105 Internet-Draft deadline.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any




Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Clean Modern Network Unicode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  With lines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  With CR-tolerant lines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  With HT Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  With CCC Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.  With NFKC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.  With Unicode Version NNN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Relationship to RFC 5198  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Going beyond RFC 5198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Using ABNF with Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9








Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


1.  Introduction

   (Insert embellished copy of abstract here.)

   Complex specifications that use Unicode often come with detailed
   information on their Unicode usage; this level of detail generally is
   necessary to support some legacy applications.  New, simple protocol
   specifications generally do not have such a legacy or need such
   details, but can instead simply use common practice, informed by
   decades of using Unicode.  The present specification attempts to
   serve as a convenient reference for such protocol specifications,
   reducing their need for discussing Unicode to just pointing to the
   present specification and making a few simple choices.

   There is no intention that henceforth all new protocols "must" use
   the present specification.  It is offered as a standards-track
   specification simply so it can be normatively referenced from other
   standards-track specifications.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Characters in this specification are named with their Unicode name
   notated in the usual form U+NNNN or with their ASCII names (such as
   CR, LF, HT, RS, NUL) [RFC0020].

2.  Clean Modern Network Unicode

   Clean Modern Network Unicode (CMNU) is the form of Modern Network
   Unicode that does not make use of any of the variances defined below.
   It requires conformance to [RFC3629], as well as to the following
   four mandates:

   o  Control characters (U+0000 to U+001F and U+007F to U+009F) MUST
      NOT be used.  (Note that this also excludes line endings, so a
      CMNU text string cannot extend beyond a single line.  See
      Section 3.1 below if line structure is needed.)

   o  The characters U+2028 and U+2029 MUST NOT be used.  (In case
      future Unicode versions add to the Unicode character categories Zl
      or Zp, any characters in these categories MUST NOT be used.)





Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


   o  Modern Network Unicode requires that, except in very unusual
      circumstances, all text is transmitted in normalization form NFC.

   o  As per the Unicode specification, the code points U+FFFE and
      U+FFFF MUST NOT be used.  Also, Byte Order Marks (leading U+FEFF
      characters) MUST NOT be used.

3.  Variances

   In addition to CMNU, this specification describes a number of
   variances that can be used in the form "Modern Network Unicode with
   VVV", or "Modern Network Unicode with VVV, WWW, and ZZZ" for multiple
   variances used.  Specifications that cannot directly use CMNU may be
   able to use MNU with one or more of these variances added.

3.1.  With lines

   While Clean Modern Network Unicode rules out line endings completely,
   line-structured text is often required.  The variance "with lines"
   allows the use of line endings, represented by a single LF character
   (which is then the only control character allowed).

3.2.  With CR-tolerant lines

   The variance "with CR-tolerant lines" allows the sequence CR LF as
   well as a single LF character as a line ending.  This may enable
   existing texts to be used as MNU without processing at the sender
   side (substituting that by processing at the receiver side).  Note
   that, with this variance, a CR character cannot be used anywhere else
   but immediately preceding an LF character.

3.3.  With HT Characters

   In some cases, the use of HT characters ("TABs") cannot be completely
   excluded.  The variance "with HT characters" allows their use,
   without attempting to define their meaning (e.g., equivalence with
   spaces, column definitions, etc.).

3.4.  With CCC Characters

   Some applications of MNU may need to add specific control characters,
   such as RS [RFC7464] or FF characters.  This variance is spelled with
   the ASCII name of the control character for CCC, e.g., "with RS
   characters".







Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


3.5.  With NFKC

   Some applications require a stronger form of normalization than NFC.
   The variance "with NFKC" swaps out NFC and uses NFKC instead.  This
   is probably best used in conjunction with "with Unicode version NNN".

3.6.  With Unicode Version NNN

   Some applications need to be sure that a certain Unicode version is
   used.  The variance "with Unicode version NNN" (where nnn is a
   Unicode version number) defines the Unicode version in use as NNN.
   Also, it requires that only characters assigned in that Unicode
   version are being used.

4.  Discussion

   At the time of writing, RFCs are formatted in "Modern Network Unicode
   with CR-tolerant lines and FF characters".

4.1.  Relationship to RFC 5198

   The third and fourth requirement listed above are also posed by
   [RFC5198], while the first two remove further legacy compatibility
   considerations.

   [RFC5198] contains some discussion and background material that the
   present document does not attempt to repeat; the interested reader
   may therefore want to consult it as an informative reference.  See
   also Section 4 below.

   Mandates of [RFC5198] that are specific to a version of Unicode are
   not picked up in this specification, e.g., there is no check for
   unassigned code points.  Note that this means that a CMNU
   implementation may not be able to handle the normalization of a
   character not yet assigned in the version of Unicode that it uses.
   (See also Section 3.6 below.)

4.2.  Going beyond RFC 5198

   The handling of line endings (not being part of CMNU, providing LF-
   only and LF/CRLF line endings as variances) may be controversial.  In
   particular, calling out CR-tolerance as an extra (and often
   undesirable) feature may seem novel to some readers.  The handling as
   specified here is much closer to the way line endings are handled on
   the software side than the cumbersome rules of [RFC5198].  More
   generally speaking, one could say that the present specification is
   intended to be used by state of the art protocols going forward,
   maybe less so by existing protocols that have legacy baggage.



Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


   Even in the "with CR-tolerant lines" variance, the CR character is
   only allowed as an embellishment of an immediately following LF
   character.  This reflects the fact that overprinting has only seen
   niche usage for quite a number of decades now.

   Unicode Line and Paragraph separators probably seemed like a good
   idea at the time, but have not taken hold.  Today, their occurrence
   is more likely to trigger a bug or even serve as an attack.

   HT characters ("TABs") were needed on ASR33 terminals to speed up
   whitespace processing at 110 bit/s line speed.  Unless some legacy
   applications require compatibility with this ancient and frequently
   varied convention, HT characters are no longer appropriate in Modern
   Network Unicode.  In support of legacy compatibility cases that do
   require tolerating their use, the "with HT characters" variance is
   defined.

   The version-nonspecific nature of CMNU creates some fuzziness that
   may be undesirable but is more realistic in environments where
   applications choose the Unicode version with the Unicode library that
   happens to be available to them.

   With respect to Normalization (NFC), the unusual circumstances
   alluded to above can come from the the fact that some implementations
   of applications may rely on operating system libraries over which
   they have little control.  Adherence to the robustness principle
   suggests that receivers of Modern Network Unicode should be prepared
   to receive unnormalized text and should not react to that in
   excessive ways; however, there also is no expectation for receivers
   to go out of their way doing so.

   Some background on the prohibition of byte order marks: The 16-bit
   and 32-bit encodings for Unicode are available in multiple byte
   orders.  The byte order in use in a specific piece of text can be
   provided by metadata (such as a media type) or by prefixing the text
   with a "Byte Order Mark", U+FEFF.  Since code point U+FFFE is never
   used in Unicode, this unambiguously identifies the byte order.

   For UTF-8, there is no ambiguity and thus no need for a byte order
   mark.  However, some systems have made regular of a leading U+FEFF
   character in UTF-8 files, anyway, often in order to mark the file as
   UTF-8 in case other character codings are also in use and metadata is
   not available.  This can wreak havoc with the ASCII compatibility of
   UTF-8; it also creates problems when systems then start to expect a
   BOM in UTF-8 input and none is provided.  Section 6 of [RFC3629] also
   recommends not using Byte Order Marks with UTF-8, but does not phrase
   this as an unambiguous mandate, so we add that here.




Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


5.  Using ABNF with Unicode

   Internet STD 68, [RFC5234], defines Augmented BNF for Syntax
   Specifications: ABNF.  Since the late 1970s, ABNF has often been used
   to formally describe the pieces of text that are meant to be used in
   an Internet protocol.  ABNF was developed at a time when character
   coding grew more and more complicated, and even in its current form,
   discusses encoding of characters only briefly (Section 2.4 of
   [RFC5234]).  This discussion offers no information about how this
   should be used today (it actually still refers to 16-bit Unicode!).

   The best current practice of using ABNF for Unicode-based protocols
   is as follows: ABNF is used as a grammar for describing sequences of
   Unicode code points, valued from 0x0 to 0x10FFFF.  The actual
   encoding (as UTF-8) is never seen on the ABNF level; see Section 9.4
   of [RFC6020] for a recent example of this.  Approaches such as
   representing the rules of UTF-8 encoding in ABNF (see Section 3.5 of
   [RFC5255] as an example) add complexity without benefit and are NOT
   RECOMMENDED.

   ABNF features such as case-insensitivity in literal text strings
   essentially do not work for general Unicode; text string literals
   therefore (and by the definition in Section 2.3 of [RFC5234]) are
   limited to ASCII characters.  That is often not actually a problem in
   text-based protocol definitions.  Still, characters beyond ASCII need
   to be allowed in many productions.  ABNF does not have access to
   Unicode character categories and thus will be limited in its
   expressiveness here.  The core rules defines in Appendix B of
   [RFC5234] are limited to ASCII as well; new rules will therefore need
   to be defined in any protocol employing modern Unicode.

   The present specification recommends defining the following rules:

   ; modern unicode character:
   uchar = %x20-7E / %xA0-2027 / %x202A-D7FF
         / %xE000-FFFD / %x10000-10FFFD
   ; modern unicode newline:
   unl = %x0A
   ; alternatively, modern unicode CR-tolerant newline:
   utnl = [%x0D] %x0A
   ; if really needed, HT-tolerant unicode character:
   utchar = %x09 / uchar

6.  IANA considerations

   This specification places no requirements on IANA.





Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


7.  Security considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC5198] apply.

   A variance "with NUL characters" would create specific security
   considerations as discussed in the security considerations of
   [RFC5198] and should therefore only be used in circumstances that
   absolutely do require it.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0020]  Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
              RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5198]  Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
              Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.

   [RFC5255]  Newman, C., Gulbrandsen, A., and A. Melnikov, "Internet
              Message Access Protocol Internationalization", RFC 5255,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5255, June 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5255>.






Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Modern Network Unicode                July 2019


   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC7464]  Williams, N., "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Text
              Sequences", RFC 7464, DOI 10.17487/RFC7464, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7464>.

Acknowledgements

   Klaus Hartke and Henk Birkholz drove the author out of his mind
   enough to make him finally write this up.  James Manger, Tim Bray and
   Martin Thomson provided comments on an early version of this draft.

Author's Address

   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org


























Bormann                  Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 9]


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