[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Compatibility requirements
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: RE: Compatibility requirements
- From: Andrew Draper <ADRAPER@altera.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:51:38 -0800
- Cc: "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:49:08 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
> > Since this was derived from one of my requirements I have to confess
that I
> > made up the term "language set". What I meant this to mean was that a)
if
> > we specify a protocol which uses language tagging those tags should be
> > opaque to a caching server and b) if we specify a canonicalisation
algorithm
> >the caching server should perform correctly* regardless of how much (or
how
> >little) of that algorithm it has implemented.
>
> I agree with requirement (a) and its wording. Let's not invent new terms
> like "language set". As for (b), the requirements doc should not be
> requiring the canonicalization; the protocol doc should.
Agree. What about:
If the IDNS protocol specifies a canonicalisation algorithm then a caching
server should perform correctly* regardless of how much (or how little) of
that algorithm it has implemented.
Andy