draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt and bidi
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Sun Mar 8 01:35:12 CET 2009
--On Saturday, March 07, 2009 11:01 -0500 Lyman Chapin
<lyman at acm.org> wrote:
> Martin and Andrew,
>
> Although it seems that numeric values above 255 would be safe,
> some software looks only at the low-order 8 bits of a number
> encoded in a 16-bit (for example) field (ignoring any
> high-order bits) when it "knows" that a numeric value will
> always be 255 or less. In that case only the 8 low-order
> bits (10011010) of 666 (...01010011010) would be recognized.
> Entering "666" into such an interface would be equivalent to
> entering "154".
Lyman,
I'm completely confused and don't know what you are talking
about. If the issue is domain names, expressed the preferred
syntax of dot-separated ASCII characters, "666" is as good as
"ABC" or "ACM". If the issue is numeric values, the DNS spec
understand only octets and not, e.g., 16 (UTF-16?) or 32
(UTF-32/UCS-4) data fields. The last I looked, it was quite
hard to fit a decimal number larger than 255 into an octet.
So, what are you saying?
john
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list