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

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>]

At 5:46 PM +0200 6/26/00, Maurizio Codogno wrote:
> I had the impression that canonicalization (c14n? :-) ) as an
> idempotent operation, that is, if you recursively apply canonicalization
> to a name you'll keep obtaining the same result. At that point,
> I think that it could be safe to add canonicalization both at
> resolver and at server, so that even if one of those fails we get
> the correct result anyway.

Safe, yes, but very wasteful of CPU. It would be better 
architecturally to have a demarcation point where everything on one 
side is known to be canonicalized.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium