John C Klensin wrote:
> As has been pointed out, "undefined" means "undefined" and, > given interoperability and the robustness principle, something > that should not be (attempted to be) used. It doesn't mean > "non-alphabetic" -- that constitutes defining it. They are "undefined" for interpretation, but they are "defined" as eight-bit code values for the purposes of storage and transfer. Consider the lowly cache. What if a client and server exchange eight-bit domain names linked with an expiremental RR which the cache knows absolutely nothing about? What if eight-bit owner names are explicitly interpreted for that RR? Clearly there is only one interpretation that works in the distributed model. I suppose you could argue that the ~standard RRs from STD13 are special and do not have any such meaning, although I would argue against it. You could also argue that sending eight-bit codes with the ~standard RRs from STD13 is a bad idea but not prohibited and I would agree with you. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
