Re: Compatibility requirements

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
 I am not fond of this because it is making assumptions about where the
> canonicalization is done. My strong preference is to do canonicalization on
> the client, but I don't know if we want to specify that (or not that) in
> the requirements document. I'd be happy if we said "the protocol must
> specify canonicalization and it must be done before the name is resolved",
> but I think that's too strong for this group.

Was doing editing on a new updated draft. But before I add this into the
requirement draft, one question.

If the canonicalization is done at the client, then it will break the 
requirement "The same name resolution request should generate the same
response, regardless of the location (or localisation settings) of the
resolver, the master server and any slave or caching servers involved."

Logic is pretty obvious.

I will leave this out first until we can get an consensus on this. 

-James Seng