David Conrad wrote: > Would there be the downside to this? Hi, that's already planned, I'm lazy, here's a copy: | that will be done in an draft-ietf-idnabis-952bis to nail the | two RFC 1123 <toplabel> errata, see the "A-label" thread(s) | on the IDNAbis list: | | <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.idnabis/2176/focus=2194> | | Executive summary: Obsoletes RFC 952, updates RFC 1123, | defines toplabel = letter 0*61( ldh ) letdig [...] | it is not the job of RFC 2606 to obsolete RFC 952 and update | RFC 1123. John said it is also not the job of | draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale, therefore we settled on "needs | its own RFC" (John is for BCP). [...] | Minus references, legalese, and weasel words it is *one line | ABNF* (as shown above), but admittedly loaded. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf