[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-uri-00.txt
- To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, <idn@ops.ietf.org>
- Subject: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-uri-00.txt
- From: "Maynard Kang" <maynard@pobox.org.sg>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:36:56 +0800
- Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:39:17 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
Hi Dan,
> Now, what happens if your software rejects mail for usernames longer
> than 64 bytes? publicfile-sc.942884323.agghmppopdgakhmfhbaf-amc=.xxx is
> already 53 bytes, and the number is a timestamp that will soon increase
> by another digit, so you have only 10 bytes for the rest of the name.
>
> If you wanted an IDN, what would it be? Would it fit into 10 bytes with
> ACE, not counting the .com?
The 10 byte constraint you are referring to is entirely an *application*
problem rather than an *application layer* problem.
If you use UTF-8 (or any 8-bit CES) in e-mail addresses, SMTP servers which
adhere strictly to RFC 821 will blow up due to the US-ASCII restriction. If
you use ACE, perhaps only your mailing list software will blow up. I think
there are more systems which deal with SMTP than with mailing lists.
The basic premise is this: any solution to an internetworking problem should
first deal with layers as low as possible before moving upwards, as problems
at lower layers tend to affect a greater number of systems.
maynard