Re: [idn]

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

Jefsey,

Offline again: I really really advise you to go to www.i-d-n.net and revise
the archives we have for the last 3 _years_.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 12:17 AM
Subject: [idn]


> I was mislead by the text of the scope into believing that seeked user
> inputs could be formulated in the user plain language. I understand now
> that we developers, users, DNS Managers are to follow the IETF rules to
> permit this WG to fulfill its mission to repot on us. Because these rules
> prevent external pressures and help you determining real life needs.
>
> I therefore try to gather enough expertises in these areas and to make
them
> write a draft document. I have no resource for such an endeavor and very
> little time. So I will continue only if it would be of help?
>
> The first inputs and meetings, lead to questions that a reveiw of the WG
> mandate helps listing. What do you think covered, you want to disregard
and
> you would wish we focus on?
>
> <quote>
> The goal of the group is to specify the requirements for internationalized
> access to domain names and to specify a standards track protocol based on
> the requirements.
> </unquote>
>
> We have problems with an International Standard constistent definition of
> "internationalized", "access" and "domain names". Is there an IETF, ISO,
> CEI definition we could use? Is there a more complete documentation of the
> posed problem?
>
>
> <quote>
> The scope of the group is to investigate the possible means of doing this
> and what methods are feasible given the technical impact they will have on
> the use of such names by humans as well as application programs, as well
as
> the impact on other users and administrators of the domain name system.
> </quote>
>
> this group has determined that Unicode was to be used to support natural
> names into the DNS. We do not find a discussion of the alternatives. A
part
> from being in the charter, it is the only way to foster innovation and/or
> evolutions in continuity.
>
> our target is to help this group's investigation concerning the impact on
> humans and applications as well as on computer and network services
> including DNS, OPES, mail, web services ..administrators.
>
> We understand that no questionnaire has been sent yet to the Internet
> community to gather the necessary information and comments. Current group
> exchanges show there is a lack of agreement among the WG on the needs and
> impacts. Also that "technical impact" is understood in extremely
> restrictively (within the proposed solution, not as all the technical
> impacts of a proposed solution).
>
> no user, developer, administrator group should impose its requirements,
and
> impact the global solution. So we are only ready to share, with other user
> groups, in the drafting of a questionnaire to poll the Global Internet
> Community.
>
> - Is this an acceptable approach?
> - Is it technically feasible?
>
>
> <quote>
> A fundamental requirement in this work is to not disturb the current use
> and operation of the domain name system, and for the DNS to continue to
> allow any system anywhere to resolve any domain name.
> </quote>
>
> we feel that the currently proposed solution affects the current
operations
> and management of the DNS system due to:
>
> 1. the lack of documented separation between the domain name as an
> alphanumeric pointer to an IP address, and as a mnemonic. The only current
> response are the US ACPA and to some extent the ICANN UDRP. We do not
think
> they are technical responses matching the IDN additional concerns.
>
> 2. the non documented (analyze, rational, nature, evolution) introduction
> of a "prefix" in DNS names. At minimum we understand it as a second
> parallel namespace, unrelated to the first namespace by any existing rule
> from the first namespace. But, based upon pragmatic experience, we
> understand it as the introduction of a cross hierarchy in the namespace.
>
> 3. the lack of proposed solution to separate IDN zones in DNS files.
>
> We may be wrong, but we feel that should the IETF work on the first very
> basic point, every other point we rise would be easy to solve, or would
> even not exist.
>
>
> <quote>
> The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should
> administer or control usage of names that use this functionality.
> </quote>
>
> We agree as no one should be made in position to maintain a second DNS
> cross-hierarchy. This is why we feel the prefix proposition may result
from
> some existing administration. The solution should be global. If
> pre-existing practices are supported: all the better, but this should not
> limit the thinking.
>
>
> <quote>
> The group must identify consequences to the current deployed DNS
> infrastructure, the protocols and the applications as well as transition
> scenarios, where applicable.
> </quote>
>
> As a particular group, we may have a solution to propose. We believe it is
> transparent to the existing DNS infrastructure and requires no protocol
and
> minimal application changes; and no transition as it only calls on
> progressives updates of the applications software on a per keyboard basis.
>
> This proposition would motivate our effort. But our main target would be
to
> help this group to better understand the needs and the impacts on the
> users. How should we proceed?
>
>
> <quote>
> The WG will actively ensure good communication with interested groups who
> are studying the problem of internationalized access to domain names.
> </quote>
>
> This is the problem we want to help addressing.
> For that we need the help and the understanding of this group.
> I would suggest that other groups do the same.
>
>
> <quote>
> The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are
> 1. An Informational RFC specifying the requirements for providing
> Internationalized access to domain names. The document should provide
> guidance for development solutions to this problem, taking localized (e.g.
> writing order) and related operational issues into consideration.
> </quote>
>
> This is where we want to help.
> May be as co-author?
>
>
> <quote>
> 2. An Informational RFC or RFC's documenting the various proposals and
> Implementations of Internationalization (i18n) of Domain Names. The
> document(s) should also provide a technical
> evaluation of the proposals by the Working Group.
> </quote>
>
> This is where we would like to see our proposition evaluated. This is why
> it would be really useful to us if a definition of the different layers
> involed could be made. We trust the expertise of this group for the inner
> Unicode/Ascii "black-box": we are interested in the management of its
"I/O".
>
>
> <quote>
> 3. A standards track specification on access to internationalized domain
> names including specifying any transition issues.
> </quote>
>
> it seems that a rough consensus here is that a solution could go in
> operations and to be tuned further on. This cannot be: one cannot repel
> millions of names. To avoid "babelnet" the alternative is:
> - to proose a very limited IEFT experiment (aside of the other test beds),
> - to get a solution universally endorsed by users, developpers, admins and
> lawyers .
>
> Question: would that effort of ours be of any worth to you?
> If yes, I will try.
>
> thank you.
> jfc
>