Re: [idn] WG last call summary

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

"Adam M. Costello" wrote:

> Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  For a given domain
> name slot (protocol element, structured data field, function argument,
> etc), the governing specification says

The fields that are used in a message have different behaviors than the
loosely-coupled data-types which appear in multiple messages or in the
message payload.

> what you may write into that slot,

yes for both

> and tells how to interpret what you read out of that slot,

yes for both

> but it does not dictate what you may do with the name after you've
> read it.

True for message fields, false for the loosely-coupled data-types which
are independent of a particular of any particular protocol message (email
addresses, Message-ID, URLs, etc). Also true for connection identifiers.

> Do we agree on all that?

No.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/