Re: [idn] canonicalization

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 19:19 27.05.2000 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>so is there any conclusion here?
>
>should we
>
>1. leave this out and treat that it is not a problem for anyone? or;

not an option.

>2. do some minimual canonicalization and then hope for the best? or;

>3. some other suggestions?

We are discussing REQUIREMENTS, not PROPOSALS. Right?

The REQUIREMENTS should read:

- The same octets in a query MUST always return the same data
   (modulo the DNS games we all know and love :-()

- A proposal SHOULD adhere as closely as possible to the Principle of
   Least Astonhsiment

- A proposal MUST allow any client to interoperate correctly with any
   server, as long as they implement the proposed protocol correctly

- A proposal MUST describe how clients written to an early version of the
   proposed protocol will interact with servers written to a later version
   of the protocol where canonicalization is concerned; one possible means
   is to declare any mandatory canonicalization in the client to be fixed
   for all time at protocol release time.

Haven't mapped these to requirements numbers yet.

                         Harald



--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no