Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D

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

Hi James,

Thanks, I will take a look at it.  If I have any questions, I will
email you.

Ben Chan


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>; "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine"
<brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D


Ben,

Wearing my i-DNS.net hat, there is a research work we been doing on
Onomastic Normalization Engine (ONE) for Chinese, Japanese and Korean
for registration purposes.

For your I-D on Chinese, maybe it is worthwhile for you to take a look
at ONE-C. You can find it at
http://playground.i-dns.net/one/onec_sum.htm

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>
To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D


> 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).
>
>