[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>,Patrik Fältström <paf@swip.net>,James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>,RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>,keka@im.se
Subject: Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:32:57 -0400
Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:35:19 -0700
Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com

Thanks for the clarifying observations, Paul.

At 09:15 AM 6/28/00 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
<snip>
>Thus, how about the following wording:
>
>"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 looks like the right approach to me. I agree.

Regards,

Bill Semich


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

Prev by Date: Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-03.txt
Next by Date: [idn] Added reference, and synch. of terminology
Prev by thread: RE: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
Next by thread: [idn] Canonicalization requirements [21] and [22]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread