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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf