On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:13:20PM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > Next, it is a convention, which Donald, Bill, and I observed in 2929, > that "[t]ext labels can, in fact, include any octet value including zero > octets but most current uses involve only [US-ASCII]." The nuances I > recall that Donald and I exchanged notes over during the drafting was > that labels could indeed be one octet, or more, and could be any value, > though the practice at the time was the printable range of 7-bit ASCII, > and the LDH subset of that range. So the statement in your section 2 > would be that you'd like to assert a policy for a registry, the IANA > root as it happens, and there's nothing wrong with writing registry > policy, its something of a cottage industry in the ICANN g- and > cc-playpens, but it isn't a protocol specification.
It isn't clear to me from the rest of your note: are you collapsing "text" and "alphabetic" in your remarks there? At the risk of becoming a broken record (or, to pick a more recently obsolescent technology, a scratched CD), the precise problem we have to deal with is the "alphabetic restriction" in RFC 1123. Some people think it normative, and others do not. That's an ambiguity even if you personally happen to think the text is clear. Therefore, we need to fix it. Even if you think it is policy (as I do), it may still underpin other protocol issues and therefore properly be the subject of protocol. I made a similar argument on list in more detail yesterday. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
