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

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

I agree, the choice of language "...be able to recognize requests that
have..." is infelicitous. 

Can we perhaps drop the offending sentence and live with:

"The protocol MUST specify canonicalization." and leave it at that?

Thanks.

Bill Semich

At 06:05 PM 6/28/00 +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>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!

Understood.  No offense was intended with this observation, to you or to
James, sorry if such was taken..

>>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.

Agreed. "implementation proposals" here is referring to the "other" part of
this process, the proposals that are currently being put forward and
reviewed at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-compare-00.txt

>>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
>
Bill Semich
President and Founder
.NU Domain Ltd
http://whats.nu
bill@mail.nic.nu