Re: [idn] Figuring out what can be displayed

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

What you described (at least the technical part) is quite different from
IDNA so it should not be mixed up with IDNA.

Since you are a probably new to the IETF process (see RFC 2026), let me
repeat the same thing I told others:

The best way to proceed is to document your proposal in an internet draft
and submit it to the IETF. Only then could we have a proper discussion of
the proposal.

You may also want to look at some other drafts the group have seen.
Particulary, John's dnssearch.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
To: "IETF idn working group" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Figuring out what can be displayed


> Gentlemen,
> I have discussed here the IDNA issue. I have related with Adam Costello on
> the list and off list and I thank him for that. I have heard the different
> remarks of many. I will now tell you how I will document and implement my
> axcess engine system "IDNA" support.
>
> I offer that to permit an analysis on a real project. I do not expect to
be
> criticized on religious/theoretical grounds but to be helped towards a
> better end-user and OPES support, in a way creating the minimum
discrepancy
> or no discrepancy with the standard you propose.
>
> I do this because I fight for my own business survival in a real
> international world, not as a corporate manager or a distinguished
> academic. I only possibly paid by real customers with real users.
>
> My premises:
>
>
> 1. I live for 25 years (1977) in the international data communications
> world. I always made my money there for ma family, except since I came
into
> the IP world. I still accept it as a long investment period.
>
>
> 2. Since the very beginning I am involved with the international namespace
> (INS). It interconnected in 1984 with DNS (there are some differences in
> perspectives quoted by John Klensin who was not involved here by then but
> has a command of the Internet history. Probably because of the time flow,
> and because when you build a gateway there is by nature a male and female
> perceptions). This is of low interest. What is of interest is the
> experience: we must take advantage from the pros of both sides and avoid
> the cons of both sides (I understand that is what he means). This gives me
> an unique experience about the way the real world behaves; and some more
> intuitive knowledge of the needs and constraints than those who related on
> the matter with Govs, operators, market, corporates, law makers, end
users,
> local tech support, end-application developers. Sorry to quote that: it is
> only to explain why I suppose this mail might be of use.
>
>
> 3. for 20 years the only thing which really worked and made the "Internet"
> in most people minds is the DNS part of the namespace. The reasons why it
> works is because it is stable, simple and most of all consistent with
> intuitive addressing feeling.
>
> I co-created the namespace in a form which developed all over the world,.
> But with a semantic which would NOT have had the same impact as the DNS.
>
> We started with the root names, then from LEFT to RIGHT (as in a sorts,
> disk directories etc.) we permitted operators to add hostname as an
> extension, then sub-hosts. We created the hierarchy, but it was a mess.
>
> Because we had no zone (as in IP addresses). What the DNS brought was to
> respond intuitively to the need of the users in sorting out clearly that
> mess. The reversing from right to left at the gateway and the use of the
> "." as a reversing indicator did it all. RFC 920 the "prefix" of the time
> was the suffix ".arpa".
> (When you start with an unique thing you start with two: it and not it.
Two
> is by nature a family and a family grows).
>
> It did it all, because the resulting addressing logic was brainware
> consistent with postal addressing and EDI rules. Country last. And you can
> keep adding details first. Like on an envelope the name (e-mail name)
comes
> first (and as in the "vielle France" etiquette: the use the "@" [at the
> proper "à Monsieur," place] as it was created for this in Middle-Age (@ is
> latin "ad"). This means a brainware consistent system with an habitus of
> more than 8 centuries.
>
> We kept BOTH system working. We interfaced a few people to ARPA in right
to
> left hierarchy and supported in left to right the numeric names X121
> hierarchy. From 1982 to 1986 I carried the same task as IDNA - but the
> other way : instead of expanding from 38 characters to billions, I reduced
> from 36 to 10. For the same public.
>
>  From experience, the reason why it worked (IMHO) is that we adapted to
the
> least able technology. We were using names and had to support digital only
> addresses. We used "numeric names". But we had all the capacities of the
> names, so when Transpac was only using an IP-address like scheme , we had
> the flexibility of a complete real time, flexible and powerful database.
So
> we proposed value added services but not a new system.
>
> I think the only way IDNA can succeed is the same way. Unicode is the
> powerful system: DNS is the less powerful one. I am an seaman: the speed
of
> a convoy is the speed of the slowest vessel less the zig-zags. IDNA must
be
> considered as a DNS service, subject to the constants of a dual system.
>
> IDNA can only be DNS value added, not as an alternative system, even
> embedded.. The only alternative system would be to study, specify,
develop,
> experiment a new DNS. IMHO it cannot be done in two minutes (IMO it will
> take years and due to the political implications that it is a big, big
task
> ahead which will involved 190 countries universities, Telcos, Govs,
> communities). I also think it cannot be done one shot. This is why I
> suggest to look into DNS.2 (improving stabilizing the system, its
> operational architecture, its political insertion, etc... in compatible
way
> with the current DNS - I do not even know if we need to increase the
> character set). This is why I also work on top of it on extended DNS
> services, like IDNA, authetification, access engines, etc (DNS+). This is
> the rational of the Dot-Root proposition ( http://dot-root.com ) still in
> infancy and only partly documented in English. But with gaining interest.
>
> So I only consider serious and conform use of the DNS: the rule and the
> bible. Errors/tricks in using it are of no concern to me. Errors and
tricks
> do not make the basis for a rule (this is a basis of the Roman Law and of
> social life).
>
> There is a hierarchy of the addressing information. That hierarchy is
> necessary to get the next info. There is no use to know an ASCII or
Unicode
> the forename of someone if you do not know the name, the city and the
> country. The way you write that information does not make it different.
>
> Question: are there existing additional hierarchies in postal (brainware)
> addressing? ie something the mailman need to chose between different mail
> destination - and or mail path?
>
> - not the title (Mr, Mrs, Dr, M. Mme, Snr, M.M., Her, Esq. etc...)
> - not the type of information: a nickname is accepted as long as the layer
> below accepts it. I mean than "Jack" is accepted for "John" in an Irish
> family and "Jefsey Morfin" will be accepted in the "Morfin" mailbox.
> - partly the service : is it a hierarchy/an added information in the
naming
> hierarchy? Postal Services all over the world use "Port Payé" or "Port
du".
> The same as all the DNS Managers use "MX". The routing: "AirMail" or
> "ParAvion". (note: these hierarchies are not in naming. They are used when
> applying before or in parallel to the routing).
> - the scripting is an intuitive (real) hierarchy: is the scripting local
to
> the sender, to the sendee or  international scripting? Usually only
> international and sendee scriptings are accepted. The place where the
> discrimination is carried is the first point where a scripting is not
> understood anymore. In some cases it can go beyond through an alternative
> path: in adding "c/o some go-between" who will translate.
>
>
> 4. access engine. To understand the way I am going to use IDNA+, and why,
> one has to understand the access engine concept. I name and develop
"access
> engines" DNS resolvers which use an extended resolution strategy. For
> example my domain name is http://utel.net . There is no access engine
> implemented there, but http://jefsey.morfin.utel.net could accept the call
> as the default for utel.net and resolve the 3 and 4LD as
> jefsey.morfin.utel.net, morfin.jefsey, jefsey, morfin, vacations etc...
>
> This kind of OPES provides a directory service but also an easy ULD (upper
> level domains) management system in using LDAP like system or more
advanced
> directory solutions, etc...
>
> This means that I have no problem to introduce transparently punnycode
> support in my existing names. http://U+xxxU+yyyyU+zzzz.utel.net are OK.
>
> The access engine resolves in two ways. Either as a reroute or as a normal
> DNS server. This depends on the economics and on the user system
> architecture. They are transparent. http://jefsey.utel.net can resolve one
> day as a reroute to http://jefsey.com and the next day as a CNAME for
> http://jefsey.com. I note that the test for a French application supports
> 1.500.000 names with a target for 150.000.000, with some added value
> variations (abbreviations, accents,e ct) what corresponds to billions of
> names. The DNS could not support all this, but provide a stable, simple,
> existing support for the ULDs.
>
> These access names are either free or cheap and will be legally enforced
> one day (we will support the national IDs, immotic telemates, etc). We
> cannot plan to spend much energy to support billions of names for millions
> of people.
>
> Obviously these names must be transparent to different accepted writings:
> upper, lower, accentuated cases. "eleve" must be bijective with "élève".
>
> That engine can to some extend accept the most common typos and the
> sound-alike wording. But it will not easily accept that a French "O" is
> replaced by a Greek "o".
>
>
> 5. legal issues. Due to the IETF current lack of documentation between the
> software domain name as an alphanumeric pointer to an IP address, and the
> brainware mnemonic cannonic/alias to a domain name, there are out of
> context laws/jurisprudence such as ACPA, Whois, etc. we must live with.
>
> I do not want to run into endless UDRPs and "a la Joe Sims" contractual
> issues because a Chinese way to write something will print on all the
> French non-IDNA displays and printers as "iesg-ibm.fr" or as a racist
text.
>
> Not a minute nor single penny to spend helping other to understand if what
> will legally counts is one or the other formula.
>
>
> Now the "Jefsey's solution".
>
> 6. From all this (and other economy, marketing, social etc... points) my
> implementation and explanation will be as follows.
>
> a) there is an unique DNS naming sequence. That sequence utilizes the
> International Domain Names System Character set, named "IDNScode". Today
> IDNScode includes 0-9, A-Z dash and dot. Nothing prevents it to be
extended
> by the DNS designers.
>
> b) the extended-Unicode set (e-Unicode) includes the current Unicode
> version plus the current IDNScode version..
>
> c) the support of natural Internet names is organized through specialized
> sub-domains the charter of which defines the e-Unicode supported sub-set,
> and the bijective e-Unicode/IDNScode reading/writing function. Their ULD
> (upper level domain) will be of the form ".prefix--suffix.tld", where
>
> - prefix indicates the conversion system
> - the suffix indicate the used e-Unicode restriction.
>
> The prefix will be the "iesg--" prefix for the IDNA system. The null
suffix
> will default to "IDNScode".
>
> d) registrations will use current NIC management systems with a
> transwritting using a punnycode routine after a sub-namespace character
filter.
>
> e) abbreviated name presentation will be supported to possibly hide/insert
> the script sub-domain. This will be insured by "prefix--suffix" loaded or
> embedded plug-ins (on the system) or as OPESes.
>
>
> Discussion
>
>
> 7. I will use the French name "élève" (pupil) fro this discussion, since
it
> is supported by my keyboard and should probably be by all of yours.
>
> a) support of international registration by AFNIC : http://eleve.fr
>
> b) support of the French registration by AFNIC:
>    - uppercase scripting : http://ELEVE.FR - existing as http://eleve.fr
>    - accentuated lower case : http://élève.iesg--fr.fr
>      entered also as :
>      - http://eleve.fr  (decision to be taken by AFNIC to comply with
> French law)
>      - http://eleve.iesg--fr.fr (until the IDNScode == Unicode)
>
> c) update of the e-Unicode character set
>    - one shot ^parallel registration of the new scripting equivalent
>    - management of the possible conflicts
>    - de registration of the obsolete e-Unicode scripts once every user
> supports the new version.
>
> d) work to be done to support this service
>    - creation of the "iesg--fr" domain name
>    - adding of a French character set list in the Punnycode C code.
>    - delay to the market: 24 hours after the release of the "iesg--"
> characters.
>
> e) user implementation
>    - this is transparent to the current situation
>    - e-Unicode support can be provided by who wants and different natural
> character sets can be implemented depending on the user keyboard.
>
> f) legal implications
>    - none
>    - the e-Unicode scripting is by nature 3+LD names outside of the WIPO
> area of influence.
>    - jurisprudence will develop probably on brainware mnemonic second
> level, but it should be related to the documented good, rather than a good
> by itself. if the good is the domain name: the standard UDRP apply on the
> registered DNS entry: nothing changed. If it applies on any other good:
> domain names are not even only more considered as such.
>
> g) extensibility
>    - there is no addition to the DNS which can be as freely extended as
before
>    - there is an unlimited extension of the natural character set through
> the suffix. There an unlimited capacity of extension on the processes
> through the prefix. There is a quasi unlimited capacity of extension
though
> another semantics.
>
> h) load
>    - the load forecast on the DNS imposed by current IETF proposition may
> be tremendous a TLD may become a new worldwide ".com" with hundred of
> millions of entries, on the whim of a fashion. The sub-domain approach
> obviously permits the transparent load of billions of Internet names.
>     - however the load shifts towards the sub-domain information
management
> within the work frame of the new loads imposed on the root server system
> and on the DNS. This load is to be considered all together with the load
> imposed by Microsoft's "dynamical" DNS management, portables, DNS lookup
> leaks, racing multiple root calls for speed of some resolvers, ENUM
> support, security concerns etc..
>
>
>
> Summary.
>
> The whole Recommendation is that the Internet Community agrees that a
> domain name including a double dash "--" means a domain name which can
been
> hidden/created by applications should the corresponding set of recursive
> processes (defined by its charter) it describes, have been applied.
>
>
> Some examples:
>
> - iesg-- : this domain specializes in IDNScode scripts
> - iesg-fr  this domain specializes in "French names".
> - fm-- : this domain specializes in telephone follow-me services
> - iesg--fm-fr : this domain specializes in telephone follow-me services in
> French accentuated names.
> - enum--fr: enum names tel://139500510.enum--.fr
> - tel--fr: enum through french name names : tel://eleve.tel--fr.fr entered
> on my mobile as "éléve.fr" that may be transcoded into tel://eleve.fr,
> tel://élève.tel--.fr.fr http://eleve.iesg-tel--fr etc. depending on the
> services organized by the operator.
>
>
> I certainly accept that it is rather different from the current wording
and
> concerns. But I think it is compatible. I hope it may help. I will keep
> posting on the implementation ... as I find the funding.
>
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>