M-Label or MVALID, and dangers with mappings?

Rémy Renardin renardinr at gmail.com
Sat Apr 11 17:53:20 CEST 2009

2009/4/11 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>

> A. Should we defined MVALID?
> B. What should the general rule be that define it (we can have codepoints
> in Exceptions as before)?

JFC and I are on Easter vacations so I cannot ask him to confirm, but I feel
you are converging. Not the same vision yet, but nearer  wavelength. My
personnal suggestion would be to consider the DN layers by themselves (DNS,
application, user). Then the way they articulate in the
network+application+usage architecture. Then the way and where to achieve
that kind of articulations. Your part would then be this last issue.
Modulations would then be much easier to analyse, document and protect.

I know I am French: I need some methodology. Sorry for that, but I feel it
helps. I feel A, M, U labels concepts should be put in a table in regards of
DN layers and the services performed at this layers. Because various usages,
inter-applications, and security concerns are to hook in the proprer way to
the linguistic naming pile. In discussing such a table, we might get to
better definitions and mutual understanding.

Rémy Renardin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090411/be863bae/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list