To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>
Date:
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:07:22 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To:
<DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D7508F7@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: International Issues @ 3.4.2[6] and 9.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Are you suggesting that 9.-[2] should more explicitly state that one > of the social information representations MUST be ASCII, and a > second non-ASCII format is OPTIONAL? This makes sense to me. While I may not be able to type in a Kanji address on my keyboard, using Latin characters may result in a record incomprehensible to the person the data is actually about - which is probably not desirable. Required ASCII plus optional non-ASCII seems just swell to me. :P -- Shane p.s. As a completely off-topic aside, this would seem to be the right solution for DNS too.