On 5/17/10 10:06 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
My point here is that if you're discussing alternatives, you need to
address why this alternative was not used. There may be useful reasons
(in specific, using a separate command allows you to reuse some error
codes more usefully), but you're also incurring an extra round trip,
which people tend to count these days.
Joe,
The use of AUTH follows HOST and precedes USER and PASS. Your
suggestion of combining USER+HOST exposes USER.
International consensus was reached between the ISO, IETF, ITU, and
UNCEFACT on use of UTF-8 for interoperability. However, this draft
requires Puny-code input for international domain names. While
Puny-code allows IDNs to be encoded using ASCII, Puny-code is not
intended as a human interface, nor is Puny-code interoperable with
existing name services, and certificate validations. Distinguished
names in certs are UTF-8 encoded. Local name services such as LLMNR,
mDNS or Bonjour resolve domain names using UTF-8 queries.
Don't assume a server responding represents a valid server for the
host. More attention should be given to client compliance checks and
the human interface.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf