Mark Andrews wrote:

>>On the point of character set recommendations, I think what you should be=20
>>pointing at is not 1034 and 1035 in general, but say that they SHOULD=20
>>follow the recommendation of RFC 1035 section 2.3.1.
>>Since the rule was actually relaxed in RFC 1123 section 2.1, I think the=20
>>sentence should say "SHOULD follow the character set recommendation of RFC=20
>>1035 section 2.3.1, as modified by RFC 1123 section 2.1".

> RFC 1123 relaxed RFC 952 (and RFC 822 by implication) not
> RFC 1035. It relaxed to *hostnames* not domain names.
> Domain names were already general enough to support mapping
> the expanded hostnames to domainnames using the null mapping.
> The rest follows from that relaxation. RFC 1035 section
> 2.3.1 is advisary based on the state of RFC 952 and RFC
> 822 when it was written.

DHCP should not try to define or give improper descriptions on
anything about domainnames nor hostnames.

DHCP should just refer relevant STDs and RFCs without referring
to UTF-8, ASCII nor character sets.

That's how we can keep standards orthogonal.

Extra infromation is useless to those who knows them and harmful
to those who don't already have enough knowledge on them.

Masataka Ohta

to unsubscribe send a message to with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.