See Section 1.3 of draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt But please dont rehash old arguments on domain names & host names. It is a story which have no right answer. Go thru the archives (early 2000) if you want.
-James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "liana Ye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [idn] proposed wg charter, goal & milestone update > I have seen domain names and host names are used > interchangeably. What is the difference? Do anyone > care to give a little more context? > > Liana > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:56:46 +0100 David Hopwood > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > Apologise for the late update as it taken some time to get the > > wordings > > > right. I shall list all the changes first and then the complete > > charter > > > below. Please comment. > > > > > > Changes 1: Add wordings to clarify the concept of "names vs > > identifiers" > > > > > > "Domain names is one form of identifier. It does not have the > > technical > > > capability to encode names or languages information." > > > > The DNS *could* encode language/script information (or relations > > between > > corresponding names in different languages/scripts); all that would > > need > > is a new RR. What is true is that the names themselves are not > > language- > > tagged. > > > > Also, the requirements draft makes a useful distinction between > > domain > > names (which are octet strings) and host names (which are character > > strings). Both are identifiers. > > > > I suggest: > > > > "Domain names and host names are forms of identifier. Language > > information is not encoded in these names; that is, names from > > different languages are defined in a single namespace." > > > > - -- > > David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ > > RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 > > 15 01 > > Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I > > revoke a > > public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key > > has been > > seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see > > www.fipr.org/rip > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: 2.6.3i > > Charset: noconv > > > > iQEVAwUBO9TcUTkCAxeYt5gVAQHhzgf8CpwK9G3h3uHIBOHWirYBHsWKuo/TlqFQ > > vzYCva6JxWOP+QVU2XY194bE7qtw1h5qof8XPCk4MPYwOjDm6XEk4XsY8zibVZhw > > sMJKrn3CftnZVpTo1zPGyw9ooDe/3hAmq4lAW51MOeaLsPuMFDziA8+JVuhEE2++ > > wVPg5oQLbWS0K6vKYF8B2ig45CZGBqv/sWJH730sjeOe0IFe3VDqpsO/aNnIbAvX > > medRFKdWwruMN82jxrgNAmZuA+hYcQrC3NSoucw97m8VD4MA2DS4V6ll+6tvYxdK > > eR9B1ylHjvKwfcLD0/VIVvKaNZN0qHWiGjo9jyraQ3v3Gjdbn5Crww== > > =ao+f > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >
