Potential Erratum re. length limits in RFC 5890
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Tue Sep 28 16:00:28 CEST 2010
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:20:21AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> characters and zero or more combining characters). A 63
> user-abstract character limit is an upper limit that is unlikely
> to be reached if non-ASCII characters are present (impossible in
> the Unicode encoding), but the WG strongly rejected earlier text
> that imposed octet limits on the length of U-labels.
This is what I recall, too. There was too much implicit confusion of
U-labels and A-labels, and therefore the upshot was
- the hard limit is the one imposed by the resulting A-label by
DNS; and
- any other limit was just a consequence of that.
If it's really important, I can maybe go back and dig up the thread.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list