[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
- From: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.it>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:18:22 +0200 (MET DST)
- Delivery-date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:18:56 -0700
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
- Reply-To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
> >At that point, I think that it could be safe to add canonicalization
> >both at resolver and at server, so that even if one of those fails
> >we get the correct result anyway.
>
> This doesn't work in practice. Example: Client assumes server
> performs canonicalisation, but its server assumes the client
> performs canonicalisation --> result is either a failure or
> an erroneous returned value to the original application's
> desired DNS lookup.
Of course, client MUST canonicalise, while server just SHOULD do it.
Is canonicalization that heavy, from the computational
point of view?
ciao, .mau.