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

[Patrik Fältström <paf@swip.net>]

At 09.22 -0400 00-06-28, J. William Semich wrote:
>As James noted, this is a requirements document - let's not to be so
>specific that we constrain various implementations that will work.

James is the wg chair, not you!

>Yes, we
>should specify canonicalization must happen - but not *where* it should
>happen - and see how proposed implementation proposals deal with it.

We don't talk about implementations. We are writing requirements for 
protocol specifications.

>Proposed substitute language for [29] and [30]:
>
>"The protocol MUST specify canonicalization. If canonicalization is done at
>the server, the server should be able to recognize requests that have
>already been canonicalized and should treat them as such."

I do _strongly_ oppose to this language, and as I said in an earlier 
message, I can accept the proposal from Ran.

We can NOT have any statement which includes "...be able to recognize 
requests that have...".

   paf