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

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

To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
From: RJ Atkinson <rja@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:27:20 -0400
Cc: idn@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-idn@xxxxxxxxxxxx

For reference:
	 "DNS Client" == "Resolver" using the pictures in Paul's draft.

Each proposal needs to clearly and precisely specify where normalisation
occurs (e.g. DNS client/resolver, DNS server).  That isn't a protocol
specification itself -- that is a requirement that each proposed protocol 
specification be clear and precise.  Hence my proposed language
is --entirely-- within scope for the requirements document.

Ran

References:
- Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: J. William Semich
- Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: J. William Semich
- Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: RJ Atkinson
- [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: RJ Atkinson
- Re: [idn] Canonicalization: [28] through [31]
  - From: Paul Hoffman / IMC

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