Re: [idn] hostname history hell

["Tim Langdell" <tim@xtns.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: "Tim Langdell" <tim@xtns.net>
Cc: "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] hostname history hell


> --On Tuesday, 20 November, 2001 15:48 -0800 Tim Langdell
> <tim@xtns.net> wrote:
>
> >>  We don't _need_ them for identifiers.  Some of them will,
> >> sooner
> >> or later, run up against a legitimate command language or
> >> cause "interesting" lexical parsing problems (even if they
> >> don't cause problems in today's URI syntax definition).  High
> >> risks, marginal benefit.
> >>...
> > I am in substantial agreement with you John except I think on
> > this issue of symbols and drawing characters. Our market
> > research shows that there is going to be a high degree of
> > demand for such characters. Further, with the wide range of
> > scripts and characters supported by Unicode, for many it will
> > be a rather academic hair-splitting which is a language
> > script/character and which is technically a symbol or drawing
> > character.
>
> Since you introduced the term "market research" into this
> previously high-minded discussion ( :-( ), have you thought
> about what you would put into a whois-like table with these
> things?  How you would feel about being put into the middle of a
> discussion of whether a name starting in a left-wizzlepop was
> too similar to one starting in a left-popplewiz? I may have
> missed something, but my impression is that the UTC TRs that
> describe canonicalization don't do much for drawing characters:
> do you propose that the IETF do that work?  Or do you think it
> is unnecessary?

It is of course that highly frowned upon concept of seeking what it is
people want (aka market research) that led us to realize people want IDNs
not just merely ASCII DNs. And led us to realize (like you I think John)
that people will need a layer on top of DNS in which feature rich
enhancements can be offered such as search (all of which are things we have
been actively engaged in on our end for about 7 months now - the building of
such a layer). But as you may have seen, many registrars are already
offering quite proudly that they will have available symbol based DNs and
IDNs (Tucows just added to the long list). So I fear if this issue is
relegated for simplicity's sake that the request will come back to the IEFT
to consider these issues anyway ...

That all said, I heartily concur with you as to the problems of
left-wizzlepop similarities and so forth. And I suspect we'll have similar
issues surrounding odd characters in obscure dead-language scripts and
symbol based systems (they are adding Tolkein's middle earth language to
Unicode aren't they?) ... so we may just be putting off what we will
naturally have to tackle pretty soon anyway. If we are canny about this I
suspect we can come up with suggestions for whois-like table handling that
will encompass virtually any ideographic, symbol or pictoral (drawing)
characters. But that's just my opinion ...

>
> And so on.  The point here is to make a case for "more trouble
> than they are worth" -- people would _like_ lots of things from
> the DNS, including things we don't know how to do (which is why
> many of us are working on "search layer" models); I'm suggesting
> that a little drawing of the lines short of the conceivable
> technical limits might be to almost everyone's advantage.
>
>      john
>
>

Heartily concur on the DNS layer issue, hence our work on a search layer
doer DNs and IDNs,  and on IDN resolution (assistance/enhancement) via such
a layer for some 7 months or so now.

Tim