[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Canonicalization:  through 
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Canonicalization:  through 
- From: RJ Atkinson <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:01:41 -0400
- Delivery-date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:11:59 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
At 22:55 26/06/00 , J. William Semich wrote:
>At 08:48 AM 6/27/00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
> >I think we should leave this discussion to the proposal. I am okay with
> >amendement, ie.
> >"The protocol MUST specify canonicalization, and the canonicalization
> >SHOULD be done before the request enters the DNS service interface."
>SHOULD is still too strong a requirement for an open approach to
>"The protocol MUST specify canonicalization, and the canonicalization
>MAY be done before the request enters the DNS service interface or it MAY
>be done at the server."
>"If cannonicalization is done at the server, the server should be able to
>recognize when requests have already been canonicalized and should treat
>them as such."
"Each proposal MUST clearly specify precisely where canonicalisation
is performed (e.g. DNS resolver, DNS server)."
If we don't make the above clear, then the deployed result
just won't be interoperable.
>And let's see what various implementations do.