> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:33, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:24 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: >> But I also think that if it is expected that name systems may "go rogue" >> e.g. use a new innovative new string encoding, then the registry might have >> trouble listing/registering the 2LD "byte string" chosen by the name system? > > This should not be a problem: that's what we have the \DDD notation for. (See > the list toward the end of Section 5.1 of RFC 1035.) >
I just now read this, sorry. So that was a pointless tangent by me and and theoretically byte strings could be registered using \DDD-notations as is. >> So maybe Unicode provides sensible guide lines for acceptable strings under >> .alt _for the registry_? > > It does not. You truly don't want to deal with byte sequences that are not > allowed in the various encodings of Unicode. Specifying the names in a format > that DNS folks recognize (ASCII and \DDD) should suffice for someone looking > at the registry. If they have a further question, there is a link to the > specification. You convinced me. BR > > --Paul Hoffman >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
