> "The protocol MUST specify canonicalization, it MUST specify exactly
> where in the DNS that canonicalization happens and does not happen,
> it MUST specify how additions to ISO 10646 will affect the stability
> of the DNS and the amount of work done on the root DNS servers."
This formulation sound fine to me. I think this is what Bill meant
(and which I agree with), but the above formulation is much clearer.
I strongly *disagree* with Patrik's formulation, which says something
quite different.
/kent k