A-label definition

[Vint Cerf]

seems to me that clarity might suggest a distinct RFC. the WG would  
have to agree that such an RFC is in scope (I certainly believe it to  
be on the grounds that we are having to look very carefully at how we  
word our definitions as we introduce IDNs since we don't want to  
create unplanned side problems with the introduction of the xn--  
format at each level.

vint


On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>> If you think it helps we could move RFC 952 to HISTORIC,
>>> it muddies the water when it shows up in ICANN documents
>>> published in 2008.
>
>>> The decruft experiment (RFC 4450) missed RFC 952, because
>>> it was limited to standards, excluding "status: unknown".
>
>> It is the current RFC that limits hostnames to LDH.  -GW
>> and -NIC etc. are just shoulds not musts.
>
> RFC 1035 claims that RFC 952 "specifies the format of
> HOSTS.TXT, the host/address table replaced by the DNS."
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
> RFC 1035 says "63", not "24", it is an Internet Standard, it
> was updated by RFC 1123, another STD.  And it defines LDH.
>
> For what purpose do you onsider RFC 952 as current ? It has
> in essence the same LDH concept, only limited to "24".  I'm
> not *generally* opposed to old RFCs with an unknown status,
> but RFC 952 is (apparently) "de facto" obsolete.  It's just
> that nobody bothered to note the fact "officially" so far.
>
>> To move RFC 952 to historic we need to write a RFC which
>> consolidates all the changes to hostnames: syntax, lengths
>> etc. into one document.
>
> Okay, I wanted an "updates: 1123" for the <toplabel> issue,
> we don't need "updates: 1035" because RFC 1123 already did
> this, but adding "obsoletes: 952" to idnabis-rationale is
> a possibility.  But I don't see the necessity to justify an
> "obsoletes: 952" in an IDNAbis memo.  Unlike the <toplabel>
> bug, that is IMO required for IDNAbis, and it doesn't belong
> into say 2606bis.
>
> We could of course also fix this bug in a separate IDNAbis
> memo, and while at it add an "obsoletes: 952" - short RFCs
> are good.  Is that what you propose ?
>
>  Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update