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

[Maurizio Codogno <mau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: RJ Atkinson <rja@xxxxxxxx>


> >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.
> 
> This doesn't work in practice.  Example:  Client assumes server
> performs canonicalisation,  but its server assumes the client
> performs canonicalisation --> result is either a failure or
> an erroneous returned value to the original application's
> desired DNS lookup.

Of course, client MUST canonicalise, while server just SHOULD do it.
Is canonicalization that heavy, from the computational
point of view? 

ciao, .mau.