Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration

[hoho <hoho@iis.sinica.edu.tw>]

Paul Hoffman / IMC ¼g¤J¡G

> Solving the Traditional-Simplified problem in the IDN protocol would
> have given more uniform results for users.

Agree. For example, LDH naming constraints are also built into the
DNS instead of registration policies which might vary from registry to
registry.

> The intense discussions
> over the past 18 months have shown that not only is it unlikely that
> there will ever be an IETF-based solution, and it has also become
> clear that a registration-based solution will likely give Chinese
> users more sensible naming that anything than the IETF could
> standardize.

A written document presenting detailed ideas would be helpful for
further discussions. I appreciate it if you could give a pointer to
one such document.

But, I am not sure whether you're referring to a global registration
policy of equivalent names based on Han characters, or various
inconsistent registration policies  among all the registries including
TLD, SLD, etc.?

A hybrid approach combining both IDN protocol and registration
policy is indeed an effective approach for the Chinese domain name
problem. Without implementing basic equivalence matching function
in IDN protocol, I am not sure if  registration policy along would make
sense.

Chinese  domain names service is not only provided by CNNIC,
KRNIC, JPNIC, and TWNIC, but is also provided by other ccTLD and
gTLD. Second level domain name holders can also develop their cDN
registry business by selling the third level names to other parties.
Thus,
it is essential to build a standard Han variant table into the IDN
protocol
so that users are guaranteed to receive consistent resolution of Chinese
domain names independent of the many registries. We also believe that
the developing IRNSS protocol will add more equivalence matching
capabilities to Chinese domain names, especially for those with context
sensitive variants or language-specific variants.

We believe that with international collaboration, there is an opportunity

to develop a more reasonable domain name technology. Please do not
rush into a standard to allow registries to dump premature products
into Chinese Internet community.

> For example, in the IDN WG, the proposals from CDNC
> members only addressed part of the Traditional-Simplified problem
> (the 1:1 mapping), while the registration solution can address all of
> the problem in a manner that will help Chinese users.

I understand that the 1:1 mapping table does not solve all the problems.
But, I am not sure if, "the" registration solution had ever been
proposed,
and it's going to solve all the problems.

> Due to the efforts of some CDNC members, the IETF is now well aware
> of the "2^n" variant problem that is unique to the use of Han
> characters in the Chinese language. Fortunately, using registration
> guidelines will solve the problem. The only people seriously affected
> by the size of DNS zones created by the "2^n" problem will be very
> large, flat zones such as those managed by CDNC members, but they are
> able to compensate for the size of zones with no changes to the DNS
> protocols.

There is obviously serious scalability problem associated with this
large,
flat zone solution. Though it seems to work fine for the time being. But,

its management is complicated. Furthermore, with various dictionaries
of Han variants,  registries may choose to adopt different policy of name

equivalence.  Consistent resolution of domain names is thus hard to
maintain among the registries unless character variant equivalence
matching is part of the IDN protocol.

Without supports in IDN protocol, do you have a feasible solution to
mandate a consistent registration policy on Han characters among all
registries interested in commercializing Chinese domain names, including
TLD, SLD, etc?


> Of course, the character variant problem exists in many different
> languages, not just in Chinese. Because of this, each registry or
> zone that includes IDN names needs to make decisions about name
> equivalence (and therefore multiple registrations) before they enter
> any IDN names into their zone.

If you mean to say that each registry may decide its own name
equivalence, then you are wrong. Language is international and thus
name equivalence MUST be consistent among all registries.

> Based on this input during Working
> Group last call from the CDNC, it seems clear that we need to explain
> these points more in the IDNA document.

No, explanations are not good enough. The IDN protocol has serious
roblems in dealing with Han ideograph. We need to pay more attention
on those problems.

>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium