Re: [idn] Charter, refocus

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Dan,

I am trying to get an update on the proposed charter. Note that I am not
disagreeing with you, but just trying to find out the differences
between your RFC vs our proposed Action Item(s).

> So what I see we need for DNS is:
>
> 1) An RFC stating the standard normalisation of domain names.
>
> 2) An RFC defining how domain names must be matched. As a minimum
>    it must require case-insentive matching for characters with case.

What is differences between your (1) & (2) vs

"4. A standard track specification on normalization of domain name
identifiers for the purpose of string comparisons. This document may
include case folding, map outs, and prohibited characters."

One action item may have more than one RFC btw.


> When that is done, we can add:
> 3) An RFC for ACE so we have a standard way to encode domain names
>    in ASCII,  complying with the legacy "host name" character
> restriction.

What is differences

"3. A standard track specification on an ASCII Compatible Encoding
(ACE), to be used in the standard track specification on permitting
international characters in domain names."

> 4) An RFC updating what applications should accept as "host names".

Hmm, how about modify Action Item 4 to

"A standard track specification on normalization of domain name
identifiers for the purpose of string comparisons. This document(s) may
include case folding, map outs, and prohibited characters, and what is
acceptable as host names."

> 5) An RFC how to layer ACE on top of the current DNS protocol to allow
>    legacy software to handle new domain names (for example IDNA).
>
> 6) An RFC defining how DNS itself can handle UCS based domain names
>    using UTF-8.

Yours is a more specific action to

"2.  A standard track specification on permitting international
characters in domain names, including specifying any transition issues."

While I can agree on (5), I don't think we reach a consensus on (6) yet.
In fact, we still havent even reach a consensus if we need more than one
encoding. (See thread where Eric & myself talks about that).

> - produce a draft for architecture on many things.
>    Do we have this?

Yes, there are a couple of architecture draft, for example,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-dns-search-01.txt

But no, it is not within the pool yet.

> - produce a IDN protocol draft.
>   What is this? IDN protocol? Is this the IDNA layer on top of DNS?

IDN Protocol, a generic term which may mean IDNA or other solution
depending what we agreed.

-James Seng