Re: [idn]

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Ok I haven't made a post for some time, i hope this one makes up for it.

comments in line...

-rick

On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:


> <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?

all other participitants understood the terms as did the IESG when the wg
was chartered. This is the first note I've read bashing a charter
developed over 3 years ago.

>
> <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).

The IETF didn't send out a questionnaire to see if TCP would be best over
IP. The IETF does not send out questionnaires.

> 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.

IETF standards do not impose, that is for people to do. IETF documents
stand for themseleves on the mantle of the participiants that wrote them.

> - Is this an acceptable approach?

yes, you provide no alternative.

> - Is it technically feasible?

it appears to more successfull than any other technology built by humans.

>
> <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.

out of scope for the IETF. If we would have disussed Intelectual Property
in RFC883 we would not be communicating via email today. Its not the
IETF's problem, see how governments have delt with ENUM.

> 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.

smoke less grass, or mabe move from hash to grass. I prefer hash but it
fucks up my writing too.

> 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.

out of scope, IDN deals with whats on the wire, not whts on the disk
drives. Formats of application data is not in scope for this working
group. Pick an open source application and write the code, or roll your
own ( you can sing allong if you like... roll roll roll your joint gentley
down the stream...)

>
> <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.

well call me limited, you're just going to have to restate that one for
me. as for the quote, dam right we are not making any more global
monopolies or borides that need to manage or administrer them. proven to
be a bad idea.

>
> <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?

ok, clue me on the solution, you provide no refrence, we require at least
an Internet-Draft. You appear to be capable of writing one. Without an I-D
you have no soap-box to stand on in the IETF.

don't like that, then go play at the ITU.

>
> <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.

you sound like you want to chair the IETF, maybe you should talk to Harold
about that...

>
> <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?

ok, i can actually add some content here insted of wipping you with a wet
noodle. We did discuss the requirements draft, we had one, it expired. the
group discussed writing one on how we got to the place we were; atlast we
decided that documenting the convluted process we went through could a
destructive process and not one willing soul stood up to take on the
project.

so we won't meet that goal. sure it sucks, but sometimes working groups
don't meet all their goals. the process is imperfict -- we are humans,
should you expect more?

>
> <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".

I'd propose you read the archives of the list and the numerous I-Ds
proposed. there was even a design team that reviewed many of the proposals
and wrote up their view. It was posted to the list, read the archives.

Again, make a draft, post it to the list; we don't write them for you.

>
> <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 .

no.

> Question: would that effort of ours be of any worth to you?
> If yes, I will try.

I don't think your effort would be of any use at all. I care not what
lawyers think of this. It is not the IETFs job to reach out an educate
those, like you, that need be educated; especially when they have been
instructed on how to self educate and have chose not to do so.

Making posts such as you have do nothing for us, this is not constructive,
you offer us nothing but words, unconnected dots.

-rick