draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt and bidi
lyman at acm.org
Sat Mar 7 17:01:16 CET 2009
Martin and Andrew,
Although it seems that numeric values above 255 would be safe, some
software looks only at the low-order 8 bits of a number encoded in a
16-bit (for example) field (ignoring any high-order bits) when it
"knows" that a numeric value will always be 255 or less. In that case
only the 8 low-order bits (10011010) of 666 (...01010011010) would be
recognized. Entering "666" into such an interface would be equivalent
to entering "154".
On Mar 7, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 20:02 09/03/07, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> Martin, et al,
>> I would have thought that any notion of all-digit labels would be
>> hazardous in the event they lead to confusion with dotted IP address
>> notations and would therefore be forbidden?
> Yes, but Andrew said that some people are trying to allow e.g. 666
> because that can't be confused with a dotted IP address (where 255
> is the highest possible number). And I was commenting strictly on
> the bidi implications of (among else) all-digit labels.
> Regards, Martin.
> #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
> mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update