Paul Hoffman replied..
>
> At 5:22 AM -0400 7/17/10, John C Klensin wrote:
>> (1) In Section 4.4.1, the reference should be to the IDNA2008 discussion.
>> The explanations are a little better vis-a-vis the DNS specs and it is a
>> bad idea to reference an obsolete spec.
>
> +1. I accept blame on this one, since I was tasked on an earlier version to
> bring the IDNA discussion up to date.
Well, I wrote the "traditional domain name" text in -tls-server-id-check, and
yes I looked at IDNA2008, but only -idnabis-protocol I think, and missed
-idnabis-defs where said discussion resides. So mea culpa. Yes, the latter
discussion is even better than the one in IDNA2003. Thanks for catching this.
Here's a re-write of the first para of -tls-server-id-check Section 4.4.1, I've
divided it into two paragraphs..
The term "traditional domain name" is a contraction of this more
formal and accurate name: "traditional US-ASCII
letter-digit-hyphen DNS domain name". Note that
letter-digit-hyphen is often contracted as "LDH". (Traditional)
domain names were originally defined in [DNS-CONCEPTS] and
[DNS] in conjunction with [HOSTS], though
[I-D.ietf-idnabis-defs-13] provides a complete, up-to-date
domain name label taxonomy.
Traditional domain names consist of a set of one or more
non-IDNA LDH labels (e.g., "www", "example", and "com"), with
the labels usually shown separated by dots (e.g.,
"www.example.com"). There are additional qualifications, see
[I-D.ietf-idnabis-defs-13], but they are not germane to this
specification.
how does that look?
thanks,
=JeffH
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf