Re: Insensitivity?

Hi again folks,
 From RFC3402, ss 32:
    'Furthermore, any backref replacements MAY
     be normalized to lower case when the "i" flag is given'.
I do so love that MAY.
I agree that the substitution expression will be applied to an E.164 
number (with the initial +).
Thus the i flag is not really important for the ERE for the ENUM DDDS 
Application.
However, with the sentence I've quoted, it may matter for the REPL.

AFAICT, rfc2916bis does not require ENUMservice specifications to be 
case insensitive in
the URIs they produce, so we can't just tolower() everything, as some 
URIs MAY be Case-Sensitive.
(Look at the SIP archive for much past fun on case sensitivity vs. case 
insensitivity).

That was not the point I was trying to make, however.
Every client I've seen doesn't ignore the i flag, it barfs (currently 
including SER and *).

Thus we have not reached standards-compliance in the clients out there, 
so beware.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 14 Jan 2004, at 10:57 pm, dlist wrote:

> As E164 numbers, domain names and user parts are always case 
> insensitive, I think any user agent should treat the regexp case 
> insensitive regardless of the presence of the
> i flag.
>
> ---
> Adrian Georgescu
> www.ag-projects.com
>
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2004, at 23:02, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>  does anyone actually implement the case insensitivity flag in ENUM?
>>
>> I had assumed that the i at the end was a typo in the examples in
>> RFC3403, as my eyes must have glazed over when reading section 3.2
>> of RFC3402 (on extended Regular Expression replacement syntax).
>> [Warning - strong coffee/tea is needed before attempting this]
>>
>> I have just seen two of these "out in the wild", and wonder if
>> anyone's client will handle them, or reject it as invalid (as ours
>> all do at present, and a couple of other clients I've been using :(.
>>
>> Heads up, folks!
>>
>> This is another change in expected behaviour with the introduction of
>> references to 340x in rfc2916bis - I don't think it was there in 2916.
>> all the best,
>>   Lawrence
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> enum mailing list
>> enum <at> ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>