Re: [idn] proposed wg charter, goal & milestone update

["James Seng/Personal" <[e-mail]>]

See Section 1.3 of draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt

But please dont rehash old arguments on domain names & host names. It is
a story which have no right answer. Go thru the archives (early 2000) if
you want.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "liana Ye" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] proposed wg charter, goal & milestone update


> I have seen domain names and host names are used
> interchangeably.  What is the difference?  Do anyone
> care to give a little more context?
>
> Liana
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:56:46 +0100 David Hopwood
> <[e-mail]> writes:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > James Seng/Personal wrote:
> > > Apologise for the late update as it taken some time to get the
> > wordings
> > > right. I shall list all the changes first and then the complete
> > charter
> > > below. Please comment.
> > >
> > > Changes 1: Add wordings to clarify the concept of "names vs
> > identifiers"
> > >
> > > "Domain names is one form of identifier. It does not have the
> > technical
> > > capability to encode names or languages information."
> >
> > The DNS *could* encode language/script information (or relations
> > between
> > corresponding names in different languages/scripts); all that would
> > need
> > is a new RR. What is true is that the names themselves are not
> > language-
> > tagged.
> >
> > Also, the requirements draft makes a useful distinction between
> > domain
> > names (which are octet strings) and host names (which are character
> > strings). Both are identifiers.
> >
> > I suggest:
> >
> >   "Domain names and host names are forms of identifier. Language
> >   information is not encoded in these names; that is, names from
> >   different languages are defined in a single namespace."
> >
> > - --
> > David Hopwood <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
> > RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66
> > 15 01
> > Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I
> > revoke a
> > public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key
> > has been
> > seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see
> > www.fipr.org/rip
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: 2.6.3i
> > Charset: noconv
> >
> > iQEVAwUBO9TcUTkCAxeYt5gVAQHhzgf8CpwK9G3h3uHIBOHWirYBHsWKuo/TlqFQ
> > vzYCva6JxWOP+QVU2XY194bE7qtw1h5qof8XPCk4MPYwOjDm6XEk4XsY8zibVZhw
> > sMJKrn3CftnZVpTo1zPGyw9ooDe/3hAmq4lAW51MOeaLsPuMFDziA8+JVuhEE2++
> > wVPg5oQLbWS0K6vKYF8B2ig45CZGBqv/sWJH730sjeOe0IFe3VDqpsO/aNnIbAvX
> > medRFKdWwruMN82jxrgNAmZuA+hYcQrC3NSoucw97m8VD4MA2DS4V6ll+6tvYxdK
> > eR9B1ylHjvKwfcLD0/VIVvKaNZN0qHWiGjo9jyraQ3v3Gjdbn5Crww==
> > =ao+f
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>