LDH-label terminology Iwas: Re: Comments on idnabis-rationale-01)

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Sun Jul 27 14:38:06 CEST 2008

--On Saturday, 26 July, 2008 15:35 -0400 Vint Cerf
<vint at google.com> wrote:

> at the risk of making things more complicated, do any of the
> definitions
> manage to proscribe the presence of "-" "-" in the 3rd and 4th
> position from the left in L2R LDH-conforming strings?
> One assumes that despite the possibility of R2L U-labels, the
> correct associated A-Label expression is still L2R (?).

Yes, and yes.  There was a strong prohibition in earlier
versions of Rationale.   Based on input from the group, that
prohibition was narrowed considerably in -01 because it could
have been read as applying to _all_ DNS uses and
implementations, not just IDNA.  It needs further tuning.

More generally, thanks to Marcos for getting past the argument
about terminology and doing an analysis and explanation of some
fairly serious problems with the definitions themselves.  Am
rewriting; watch this list.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list