IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idna-update] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5890 (6929)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 09 April 2022 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16A03A108B for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 13:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hSfzJ5tqK3SA for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 13:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.alvestrand.no (smtp.alvestrand.no [65.21.189.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5561B3A1084 for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 13:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id 1B1BE40F4F; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:17:44 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: idna-update@alvestrand.no
Received-SPF: None (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=4.31.198.49; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by smtp.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E290640F4B for <idna-update@alvestrand.no>; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:17:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 88EFA4C1D9; Sat, 9 Apr 2022 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
To: john+ietf@jck.com, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, vint@google.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mannyman123442@yahoo.com, idna-update@alvestrand.no, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220409201740.88EFA4C1D9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 13:17:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/-EwNA7qX_lJAJ2_1V0BYIXpf4zw>
Subject: [Idna-update] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5890 (6929)
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 20:17:51 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5890,
"Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6929

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jesus Alvarado <mannyman123442@yahoo.com>

Section: 5890

Original Text
-------------
Because A-labels (the form actually used in the
DNS) are potentially much more compressed than UTF-8 (and UTF-8 is,
in general, more compressed that UTF-16 or UTF-32), U-labels that
obey all of the relevant symmetry (and other) constraints of these
documents  may be quite a bit longer, potentially up to 252 characters
(Unicode code points).


Corrected Text
--------------
Because A-labels (the form actually used in the
DNS) are potentially much more compressed than UTF-8 (and UTF-8 is,
in general, more compressed that UTF-16 or UTF-32), U-labels that
obey all of the relevant symmetry (and other) constraints of these
documents  may be quite a bit longer, potentially up to 252 characters
(Unicode code points).
But in the encode (Unicode) they both need the process that some don’t understand in a wrap and curl. To different but same meaning in the most different way.

Notes
-----
I had a ion encoding working bigger in a math calculation.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5890 (draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework
Publication Date    : August 2010
Author(s)           : J. Klensin
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised)
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email