Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D

["ben" <ben@cc-www.com>]

Hi Eric,

As you are probably somewhat aware, I am indeed working very hard.  I
want you to know that I am keeping all your questions /input in the
back of my mind as I work and that can only help.  So I just want to
thank you for all your efforts.

The only question I want to address at this moment is something that
caught my eye.  At the very end of your email below, you concluded by
saying- "Just what makes your proposal superior?".  Perhaps this is a
good time to reiterate what I said at the very beginning:

My system recognizes the same equal importance for:

1.  Registrants given the freedom/choice to point Tradition CDN to
tradition website and Simplifed CDN to simplified website.
2.  A need for Tradition CDN to Simplified CDN conversion.

(However, I also believe that other CDN systems are absolutely fine
exactly the way they are.)

Thanks
Ben Chan



----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>
Cc: "xiang deng" <deng@cnnic.net.cn>; <lee@cnnic.net.cn>;
<sun@cnnic.net.cn>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>;
<harald@alvestrand.no>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D


[I've added idn@ops.ietf.org back to the cc'd list.
 Harald, please read and reconsider the "principle of least surprise".
 Thx.]

Ben,

What you've proposed is that for some collection of code-points, and
for
some equivalency rules (whether zone-scoped or global-scoped),
allocation
of one code-point in the collection results in pre-allocation
(reservation)
of all code-points in the collection.

Additionally, you've proposed the registrant (recipient of the
allocated
code-point equivalency class) may then modify the equivalency rule
which
created the class, and assert distinct semantics for distinct elements
of
the original (intact), now fragmented class.

To help me understand your proposal, I'll consider ASCII strings and
the
Pan-Algonquin "OU" character (U+0222) and (U+0223). A locally
constructed
French character, not present in 17th century French. I know that most
of
the North Americans and Europeans will find this choice strange, but
more
accessible, as "Indian French", than an ideogramatic example, and I
know
that my friends at CNNIC will speak to the Chinese language specifics.

Assertion: (zone scope)

In the Algonquin-preferred zone(s), e.g., abenaki.dst.me.us,
the following code-points and code-point sequences are
equivalent:
U+0070 "8" when in an alpha-string
U+0222 "8" LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OU
U+0223 "8" LATIN SMALL LETTER OU
U+0117,U+0125 "OU"
U+O117,U+0165 "Ou"
U+0157,U+0165 "ou"
U+0127 "W"
U+0167 "w"

Under your proposal, in my zone (abenaki.dst.me.us.), with ASCII case
folding
(applied to the two Latin Extended-B code points), the registrant for
"ki8na.abenaki.dst.me.us" ("ki8na" means ourselves or nous-memes),
would be
allocated or reserved:

ki{set of 4 code-point sequences}na.abenaki.dst.me.us

The registrant could then be able to associate between 0 and eight
unique
ip addresses to these 4 allocated domain names in my zone, e.g.,

ki(U+0070)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.1
ki(U+0222)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.2
ki(U+0223)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.2
ki(U+0117,U+0125)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.3
ki(U+O117,U+0165)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.3
ki(U+0157,U+0165)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.3
ki(U+0127)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.4
ki(U+0167)na.abenaki.dst.me.us and 1.2.3.4

Without case folding there could be 8 distinct addresses rather than
just 4.

This would be very surprising to a modern literate North-Eastern
Indian, and
to scholars of the Contact Period and French and Indian literatures of
the
17th and 18th centuries. As the abenaki.dst.me.us zone manager, I
don't think
I would allow it. I would expect the equivalency rule (above) to be
adopted
by the {penobscot,passamquoddy,maliseet,micmac}.dst.me.us zone
managers, and
by other "Algonquin-aware" NSN.US zone managers. I would not expect
these to
be adopted by the dst.me.us or superior zone managers. I would expect
the same
rule and scope to exist in the .ca zone and its dependent zones.

My preference is that ki{set of 4 code-point
sequences}na.abenaki.dst.me.us
all map to a single internet address.

In the Chinese language area, which includes North America as well as
China,
your "registrant election" proposal appears to have the same
surprising set
of consequences as one registrant following one ideosyncratic
convention for
"ki8na" and another registrant, possibly the same one, following a
different
ideosyncratic convention for "ni8na" (we and you or nous et vous), and
this
only gets worse as we consider strings such as k8sk8ranmsh8dans8
(sift).

Just what makes your proposal superior?

Eric

P.S. The advantage of [30], formerly "in" the IDN WG requirements
draft, was
that it made zone-specific semantics possible. Writing in modern
Abenaki (or
any "8" using French-originating modern script) using ASCII
equivalency rules
presents a problem for 0x70 to 0x127,0x167 mapping (simplest case).