Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

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

Hi L. M. Tseng

I understand that "SC/TC equivalence" is very important to users of
CDNs.  That is why I've made it very clear that I am totally behind
any efforts in finding a reasonable solution to this issue.  I
understand (and I am sure you also understand) that what is considered
a reasonable solution to some, is total unacceptable to others.  The
question then becomes exactly what is it that we can all (or atleast a
majority of us) agree on that can be provided to the users of CDNs- as
ultimately, it is the users of CDNs that should benefit from our work.

If everyone can agree that my Supreme CDN system is indeed "supreme"
(with all humbleness), then there is indeed a need to implement this
supreme system to benefit the users of CDN.  In my opinion, I feel
that the best way is to create a new type of TLD (<.traditional> and
<.simplified>) as described in my draft.

(Everytime I talk about <IDN>.<IDN>, I am so afraid that someone will
respond by saying "this is out of the scope of this IDN WG"... which
is probably true... but anyways...)

Thanks
Ben Chan






----- Original Message -----
From: "tsenglm@計網中心.中大.tw" <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>
To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>; "Adam M. Costello" <amc@cs.berkeley.edu>;
<idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence


> Hi ! Ben:
> > >
> > > This would limit people's choice of registration authority.
> >
> > In my system, CDNs cannot be a mix of TC and SC.  If that is
> > considered "limit people's choices..." then I am afraid I am
guilty.
> > However, can you come up with even one good reason why we should
allow
> > a CDN to have mixed TC and SC?
> >
>        In HongKong , Taiwan,  user use BIG5 code . This code set has
no
> simpified chinese scripts. In China , GB code set has no traditional
chinese
> scripts . So there are no mixed type of  GB and BIG5 .  But you know
> VeriSign/NSI  announced ML.com  with any UNICODE can be mixed.
> That is the key problems.
>        Any suggestions must be considered  what to do for .COM in
this WG.
> If english character is treated as case folding, Why  CJK can not
treated as
> the same way to reduce the number of registrations for trade mark
> considerations?  Case folding is also not a protocol issue .  It is
> othogonal to IDNA too.
>
> L. M. Tseng,
> > >
> > > > The same techniques documented in this draft can also be
applied
> > > > to the current gTLD and ccTLD registries by using SLDs.  In
order
> > > > to be fair, everyone must agree to this system and make it a
> > > > standard.  In addition, every registry must change their
current
> > > > registered second level domains to third level domains (ie.
> > > > <whatever>.<traditional>.TLD, <whatever>.<simplified>.TLD)
> > >
> > > I don't think there's any need to require that all domains
> > containing
> > > Chinese characters follow this convention.  It could be left up
> > > to each registrant whether they want to include <traditional> or
> > > <simplified> in their domain name.  It needn't be at the second
> > > level either.  The convention could be that clients with the
added
> > > Chinese support would be suspicious of simplified characters
> > > anywhere to the left of .<traditional>. (wherever it appears)
and
> > > be suspicious of traditional characters anywhere to the left of
> > > >.<simplified>. (wherever it appears).  This would allow things
> > > like <FOO>.<traditional>.ac.uk.  It could be recommended (but
> > > probably not required) that registration authorities never allow
> > > <traditional> or <simplified> to be registered under any zone,
but
> > > rather require registrants to register <something>.<traditional>
or
> > > <something>.<simplified>.  It could be recommended (but probably
not
> >
> > > required) that registrars register such names in pairs.
> > >
> > > One nice thing about your proposal is that it appears to be
> > orthogonal
> > > to IDNA.  Clients without the added Chinese support can still
access
> > > all domain names, they just won't provide the extra hints when
> > mistyped
> > > names fail.
> > >
> > > AMC
> > >
> >
> > I feel very strongly that there is a need to create a new type of
TLD
> > (lsTLD- as described in my draft) to implement my idea to satisfy
the
> > needs of CDN users.  Do you have any opinions on that?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ben Chan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>