"Codogno Maurizio (Rozzano)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By the way, an editing error in this paragraph was fixed between > > idna-08 and idna-09. > > I just found it in the site for the group. Was it already officially > issued?
I think so. > EDNS could have been shown as an *example* of a possible solution to > the lengthening of labels, without any endorsing. If EDNS is used to create labels that are too long for IDNA, then there will be incompatibility between the old infrastructure and the new applications. The issue of how or whether to use EDNS for IDNs is still too controversial. AMC
