[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Comments on protocol drafts
- To: C C Magnus Gustavsson <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [idn] Comments on protocol drafts
- From: Randy Bush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 05:19:16 -0800
- Cc: email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 05:19:51 -0800
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> (I've just caught up with the discussion so this will be a general
> comment to the past 100 postings or so.)
> First of all I agree with Oscarsson and others in that the Hoffman
> solution is not acceptable.
> Suppose the organisation "ishockeyförening" ("ishockeyf" + "o" with
> umlaut + "rening") owns a domain. The name contains 16 characters
> which, if my quick and dirty implementation is correct, will be 18
> bytes when compressed with the algorithm in 2.4 (Hoffman). Encoded
> with base32 it's 30 bytes and with "ph6" prepended, we're up from 16
> to 33 bytes just because one of the characters is not ASCII.
> Well, 17 bytes is not a lot but it adds up. (Remember that it's not
> unlikely that it will be used frequently for decades or centuries.)
> More importantly, it's completely unnecessary. If ASCII is not to be
> encoded in domain names, I see no reason for it to be just because
> there are one or two non-ASCII characters as well in the string.
> Therefore, I propose the following requirement:
> If an encoding is used, the ASCII characters in a string must not
> be encoded in different ways depending on what other characters
> the string contains.
efficiency does get my sympathies. however one of the lessons we seem to
continually relearn over the decades is that saving space (ram, disk,
packets) becomes unimportant at a rate that far exceeds our expectations.
so, while we should keep an eye out for useless waste, we should not be
compromising functionality to save some bytes. bytes seem to become
cheaper at a rate greater that 32ft/sec/sec.