> I think that would just about do it, modulo an issue about "on > the wire" (see below).
Yes, I wasn't very comfortable with using that term in my text. > At worst, it would make things clear > enough that the text could be fine-tuned in the next cycle if > that proved necessary. For "next cycle" = "when documents move to draft standard" I assume? > It could probably even be clarified and streamlined further, > e.g., after "does not attempt to define an 'internationalized > host name'" > > Just as has been the case with LDH names, some zone > administrators may impose restrictions, beyond those > imposed by the protocol, on the characters or strings > that may be registered as labels in their zones. Such > restrictions do not impact the protocols themselves; a > query for a name that does not exist will yield the same > response regardless of the reason why it is not in the > relevant zone. Restrictions imposed on a per-zone > basis MUST NOT have any impact on the behavior of the > on-the-wire protocol, and MUST NOT assume that clients > issuing queries or interpreting responses will have any > knowledge of zone-specific restrictions or conventions. Looks good to me. Thanks, Erik
