Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.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
>Paul's
> >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
>implementation. 
>
>Let's say:
>
>"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."
>
>And add:
>
>"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."

and add:

"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.

Ran
rja@inet.org