Re: length restrictions on IDN label
Soobok Lee <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Adam M. Costello wrote: >Soobok Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>Yes, but labels in DNS containing octets >= 128 are not >>>internationalized labels, because internationalized labels use only >>>octets <= 127 in DNS. >>> >>> >>Really ? >> >> > >Really. > > > >>"UTF-8 forms of internationalized labels" are not "internationalized >>labels" ? >> >> > >The UTF-8 form of an internationalized label is an internationalized >label. But that's irrelevant, because labels in DNS containing octets > > >>= 128 are not UTF-8. The only text encoding used by DNS is ASCII >> >> >(according to the current DNS standard). The octets >= 128 in DNS are >non-ASCII, but that doesn't mean they are UTF-8. We don't know what >they are, except octets. > But, UTF-8 forms make subset of the entire set of non-ASCII forms. Thus, the utf8-compliant subset has been under the oversall length restriction imposed by RFC1035 on the entire set. > >The UTF-8 form of an internationalized label is an internationalized >label, but a sequence of octets with no charset tag is not an >internationalized label (it's not even text). > UTF8-form of labels carry no language/encoding tag in them (unlike MIME does.) They can be only assumed or negotiated through other channel in protocols. Soobok Lee > >So I stand by my position quoted at the top of this message. > >AMC > >