[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
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