I read your previous long answer. Thanks, Adams. My comments begins... Adam M. Costello wrote:
>Soobok Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>If UTF8-encoded, that valid 8bit label will exceed 63 octets limits >>(up to 168 octets or more) >> >> > >True. > > > >>which is imposed by RFC1035 even upon non-ASCII 8bit labels . >> >> > >Yes, but labels in DNS containing octets >= 128 are not >internationalized labels, because internationalized labels use only >octets <= 127 in DNS. > Really ? then, please goto to the next comment below and compare your claim with IDNA's utf8 position. Length restriction itself in RFC1035 seems to have nothing to do with ASCII and non-ASCII distinctions, from the contexts. UDP packets length limit or practical label needs consideration seem to be behind that. > Labels in DNS containing octets >= 128 are >mysterious creatures that have no standard interpretation as text >(because ASCII is the only text encoding used by the DNS standard). > > > >>IDNA section 6.3 does not rule out that utf8 encoded labels may be >>used in DNS wire protocols in the future. >> >> > >In which case the specification of those future wire protocols will need >to deal with the fact that UTF-8 forms of internationalized labels can >have more than 63 octets. (255 is an upper bound, though not the least >upper bound.) > "UTF-8 forms of internationalized labels" are not "internationalized labels" ? if not, we should call them just " strings" as someone said ? I can't understand why utf8-form of a label is not a label. Soobok Lee
