Re: length restrictions on IDN label

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