Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, August 31, 2009 11:35 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Well, I _think_ so, except that it basically changes the
> meaning of A-label.  It used to be that A-labels were subject
> to the same rules as DNS matching, and also that they were the
> output of a Punycode conversion from a valid U-label.  They'll
> now be subject to the same rules _plus_ the rule that they're
> not allowed to be in upper case. 

Actually, if they are the output of a Punycode conversion from a
valid U-label, then they are lower-case (except possibly for the
prefix, which makes no difference).   In that sense, the
proposed prohibition is just a reminder that A-labels containing
significant upper case characters are impossible... no new rule
at all.  That prohibition/reminder could be combined with a
lowercasing proposal (per Patrik's proposed language) as a
standard way of fixing that which was broken.

> That's ok with me, but it's
> fairly late in the day to be changing the definition so
> completely, so I think it'd be a good idea to run another WGLC
> on the resulting document.

And that "late in the day" part is why I'm looking for a
minimal-change solution.

    john