James Seng wrote: >Let me repeat again, > >the restriction is octet(ToASCII(X)) <= 63 (sorry, forget the =). > >The length restriction of a domain name (incidently, UTF-8 encoded string >which looks like domain name is not a domain name) in a DNS UDP packet is >something beyond this working group. > The restriction orginated from RFC1035 affects all label creation/validations. And "octet(ToASCII(X)) <= 63" seems to loosen the restrictions about 8bit labels. That is why i think RFC1035 restriction is about to be obsoleted. >Please bring it to the DNSEXT working group. > As a novice IETF pariticpant, I have little experience with DNSEXT WG. Would Area Directors make comment on this issue, Erik ? Soobok Lee
- [idn] length restrictions on IDN label Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrictions on IDN label Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] length restrictions on IDN label Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrictions on IDN label Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] length restrictions on IDN l... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrictions on ... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] length restrictions... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Soobok Lee
- Re: [idn] length restrict... James Seng
- Re: [idn] length restrict... Mark . Andrews
