jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jul 28 18:10:31 CEST 2008
At 16:39 27/07/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 2:26 PM +0200 7/27/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >Another minimum - there are only two I'm aware of - in play
> >is 2*63( LDH ) beginning with a letter and not ending with
> >a hyphen, the "top-label". Because it begins with a letter
> >this avoids all known potential issues with IPv4 notations.
>I disagree that this is a needed definition for *this* WG. If some
>other group wants to deal with this, that is fine. It is an artifact
>of 1123 that is adds complexity but not clarity to our documents.
After consideration, I support this. The main reason why is that if
we specify something we will need to define how we will
enforce/support it. The ".su" case shows that this is not feasible.
Let assume that one of the algorithm being privately used
calls/permits "xn--binary". How would we call them? This would lead
to a discussion of non-legitimate "xn--" etc. However, this could be
discussed in a more general document for the DNS.
More information about the Idna-update