>> I recommend modify the last line "MUST be discussed" to be >> "MUST be provided", as to be " Case-insensitivity for non US-ASCII MUST be >> provided in the protocol proposal" > >I disagree. As it happens, all of the proposals provide case-insensitivity >for non-US-ASCII, but it is *not* a requirement. The protocol would work >fine and would be perfectly acceptable to users without it. We should be >clear about the difference between features that are *desirable* (in this >case for consistency), and *required* features.
Well, I disagree to that. It *is* a requirement that case-insensitivity shall work for all letters. That has been the DNS standard so far. That is what people expect. To have case-sensitive matching is not fine for everybody. If we are not going to support case-insensivity and case preserving in responses, then we should turn it of for ASCII too. Either we support full backward compatibility (that includes having case-insensitivity and case preserving in protocol for all letters), or we kill it off for ASCII letters too. Just because non-ASCII has not been used, does not mean that people expect the same rules that exist for ASCII to exist for non-ASCII. The current DNS standard has defined that case-insensitivity shall be used and that case should be preserved in responses. We break that if it is not done for non-ASCII letters too. Dan
