"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" writes:
> I'd like to see if we can close on this issue soon. The main use case
> we are targeting is one where the password is sent to the server. We do
> not know how the server will do the comparison. Given that this is a
> requirement document I don't think we
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I think the text proposed is mostly fine. I would say "normalization
> and/or comparison" instead of just "normalization" to allow for
> mechanisms that just specify comparison-based rules rather than
> normalization-based rules. So:
The text looks OK to me.
My only
Alan DeKok writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I think the text proposed is mostly fine. I would say "normalization
>> and/or comparison" instead of just "normalization" to allow for
>> mechanisms that just specify comparison-based rules rather than
>> normalization-based rules. So:
>
> The t
