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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf