Re: [idn] time to move

[Martin Duerst]

At 22:53 01/05/23 +0000, Adam M. Costello wrote:

>But in this case, we have a hard limit of 63 bytes per label.  That's
>why encoding efficiency matters in this case.
>
>Although I suppose, if you already expect to update every protocol and
>every piece of software that uses domain names, you might as well remove
>the 63-byte limit.  In that case, I would have no problem with UTF-8.

How many 'real' domain names are longer than 20 characters?
By 'real' I mean those not made artificially to meet the limit,
or otherwise more looking like a joke than anything else.
And how many of these could be shortened with a bit of
ingenuity if needed? And how many of these could be dealt
with by splitting them into two labels?

I see the 63-byte limit as something we have to ask ourselves
carefully about, but not at all as a show-stopper for UTF-8.

Regards,   Martin.