Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 01:32 30-04-2013, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I am not sure what you think is unclear. Note that the definition of
the typedef domain-name is unchanged from the one in RFC 6021. Perhaps
you can make a concrete text change proposal so I better understand
what your concern is.

I read draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-02.  In Section 4:

  "The domain-name type represents a DNS domain name.  The
   name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible."

That sounds like a MAY.

The text in RFC 6021 and the draft is clear. I don't think that the fact that DNS-related text is already in RFC 6021 means that it is correct.

  "Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded in punycode as described
   in RFC 3492";

RFC 5891 discusses about IDNA-aware implementations. It also discusses about A-labels and U-labels. The above text jumps directly to punycode.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]