#18: Internationalization Is the use of UTF-8 sufficient or is other tagging necessary. The following cases need to be considered:
1. Usernames and passwords 2. Prompts and error associated with username and password authentication 3. Other textual data > Section 4.3.6 > > " The payload MAY provide a standard attribute format that supports > international strings. This attribute format MUST support encoding > strings in UTF-8 [RFC3629] format. Any strings sent by the server > intended for display to the user MUST be sent in UTF-8 format and > SHOULD be able to be marked with language information and > adapted to > the user's language preference." > > If UTF-8 is supported, is it necessary to also mark the language? > Why is language negotiation a SHOULD? > > EAP methods such as Identity & Notification don't support this. > and > Section 4.5.2 > > " The password authentication exchange MUST support user names and > passwords in international languages. It MUST support encoding of > user name and password strings in UTF-8 [RFC3629] format. Any > strings sent by the server during the password exchange > and intended > for display to the user MUST be sent in UTF-8 format and SHOULD be > able to be marked with language information and adapted to > the user's > language preference. > " > Why is it useful to mark usernames and passwords with > language information on the wire? Comment: In the Stockholm meeting it was suggested UTF-8 was sufficient, but there did not appear to be consensus on this. -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/trac/ticket/18> emu <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/> _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
