> On Dec 20, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > > 1.5 DONE encoding of the EXTRA-TEXT field > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In any case, I think the encoding of this field should be specified as > either ASCII or UTF-8. I prefer UTF-8, because otherwise I won't be > able to send back đ€Ż emoji in error messages (and the authors won't be > able to use the đ emoji that they clearly want). > > + Resolution: we're proposing ASCII to keep the protocol simple and to > match TXT records. These are not intended to be end user messages > but rather administrative hints for operators. > > + resulting text: > > A variable length, ASCII encoded, EXTRA-TEXT field holding > additional textual information. It may be zero length when no > additional textual information is included. >
We went through some of this in IDR about routing protocols and how to leave a partner device a message. UTF-8 is the supported method. 7-bit ASCII lacks language support. - Jared _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
