Re: Compatibility requirements

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 06:05 AM 1/22/00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>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."

I do not see this.

>Logic is pretty obvious.

I must be being dense. Can you give an example of what you are saying? That 
is, show an internationalized string, its canonicalized string, and how the 
request for that canonicalized string could get a different response at a 
different location of the resolver or the other servers?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium