Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Would using ireg-name be appropriate?
If you'd want IRIs excluding domain-literals.
But your draft is about HTTP, isn't it ?
For HTTP you need URIs, or RFC 3986 reg-name,
not RFC 3987 ireg-name.
An HTTP header uses Latin-1. You could say
that clients are supposed to translate an
ireg-name into a reg-name as explained in
RFC 3987 3.1, that would be IDNA punycode,
not simply percent-encoded UTF-8.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers@...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers
