Potential Erratum re. length limits in RFC 5890

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Thu Sep 30 04:16:24 CEST 2010

At 6:31 PM -0700 9/29/10, Mark Davis ? wrote:
>So it is best to just avoid a mention of a limit like 252; either that or explain the situation in more detail.

We all do recognize that we are talking about published RFCs that went through long WG last calls and an IETF last call, yes?

More information about the Idna-update mailing list