Review of draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Sun Aug 23 17:52:21 CEST 2009


paul,

sorry - read too fast. I thought having the second figure helped to  
emphasize the scope of identifiers that DNS can support.
figure 2 shows where U-labels fit in, so it seems useful to retain.  
Perhaps we can reference appropriate RFCs to explain
bitstring and binary labels?

v

On Aug 23, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 12:31 AM -0400 8/23/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> i think we still need the figure - john suggested moving the  
>> footnotes
>> into the text to appear before the figure.
>
> You may be mixing up two figures here. I fully agree we need Figure  
> 1; my question about needing the figure was only about Figure 2.
>
>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> Anchor 10 above Figure 1 indicates that the figure might be shrunk.
>>> I propose instead that the four footnotes simply be moved to
>>> immediately after the figure, which makes the figure itself fit on
>>> one page.
>>>
>>> In Figure 2, the terms "Binary Label (including high bit on)" and
>>> "Bit String Label" are not defined and are confusing without
>>> definition. Do we need this figure at all any more?



More information about the Idna-update mailing list