IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 01 July 2011 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA419E8014 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIzGUIDt6KII for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC229E800C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p61JSra2060812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:28:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110701162416.GB24564@shinkuro.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:28:58 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E99CD110-9AEC-4DF1-A7F9-7332D4E81D4B@vpnc.org>
References: <20110701162416.GB24564@shinkuro.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:29:03 -0000

Answering one of the questions (the others seemed fine).

On Jul 1, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Second, why isn't "LDH label" in section 7 instead of section 6,
> especially since LDH is also mentioned at the beginning of section 7?

Because the definition of LDH label in section 6 is the pre-IDNA definition, not tied to IDNA. It seemed appropriate there because other protocols also think in terms of "what characters are seen in host names".

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email