Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing

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

Would prefer if you just answer a simple yes and no to the following
question:

    Did Neteka advertise a server-side resolution DNS?

It is not my business to tell you if you should or should not. I just want
to clarify if you have advertise such a product or not.

ps: It is simple question. I would appreciate a simple yes & no answer. I am
not interested in any of your other product as your long email below
described.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>
To: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing


> Hi James,
>
> Allow me to clarify again, in terms of IDN, Neteka focuses on helping
> registries to understand the registration issues, including character
> equivalence preparations, the implications to provisioning protocols that
> they are using, finally the zone preparation and publishing policies
> including equivalency preparation issues.
>
> All of which are IDNA driven. However, in many cases, databases and
> provisioning will likely not be using Punycode, because it likely makes
more
> sense to store UTF8 or Local Encoding in local databases for all intents
and
> purposes.  This includes administration of IDNs as well.  So, the servers
> does take care of the conversion between UTF8/16/LocalEncoding to Punycode
> at the zonefile for the DNS.  So I am not sure which part you are alluding
> to.
>
> Anyway, I wish not to continue to advertise our services in this forum
> because it is not right.  However I must clarify that we are very
supportive
> of the standard and we are urging TLDs and other relevant parties to make
> appropriate preparations for the challenges of IDNs beyond simply the
> "client", because there are a lot of administrative and operational issues
> as well as transition and migration issues that warrant attention.
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>; "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing
>
>
> > No, I am not "misguided" whatever that means. I am repeating what the
> people
> > asked me.
> >
> > Neither did I ask them to develop a client, or not to.
> >
> > Lastly, in your private mail to me, you mention that you have not
> advertise
> > any server-side resolution solution. Could you confirm this in public?
> >
> > Once you do, I will forward your response to the registries who have
told
> me
> > "they said they can provide a DNS server that can resolve IDN" to put
the
> > end to their misconceptions.
> >
> > -James Seng
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>
> > To: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 9:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing
> >
> >
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > If you are discussing about Neteka, I think you must be misguided in
> your
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Neteka supports the IDNA standards and we try to accomodate to the
needs
> > of
> > > registries.  In fact we are scheduled to start publishing Punycode to
> TLD
> > > zones that we work with in the very near term.  While I can understand
> > your
> > > obsession about clients and plugins, asking each registry to create a
> > > "client" is not realistic!  Most will look to Microsoft or Netscape or
> > other
> > > browsers/DNS applications to be upgraded over time to IDNA.
Registries
> > are
> > > not DNS resolver or browser vendors.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, registries really should be exerting some energy in
preparing
> > for
> > > their "servers" for IDN registrations (and NOT the resolution side as
> you
> > > have probably gotten mixed up with).  For example handling
registrations
> > and
> > > management of multilingual domain names within registration databases,
> > > considering character equivalence issues and provisioning, defining
zone
> > > publishing policies for IDNs, etc. all of these are critical to the
> > success
> > > of the deployment of IDN.  And this is where Neteka mainly focuses on
> > > working with registries and preparing their "servers" to accept IDN
> > > registrations from their end-users.
> > >
> > > I hope this clarifies Neteka's works for you and others. :-)
> > >
> > > Edmon
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> > > To: "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The .nu operator supports IDNA, among other things (you also
> > > > > can sent UTF-8 and various local encodings to their DNS servers).
> > > >
> > > > This sound bad. This is breaking the basic functionity of DNS.
> > > >
> > > > <whinning>This reminded me: Various registries have contacted me
> > regarding
> > > > how to deploy IDN, should they wish to. At least two of them have
> > mention
> > > > that some company in Toronto have told them they can deploy IDN
using
> > > "just
> > > > DNS servers only", customized made I supposed.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, IETF (or I for that matter) cannot tell anyone what they
> must
> > > do,
> > > > how to market their product, or how to deploy it.
> > > >
> > > > But when someone asked me "Are you sure I need to get some client
> deploy
> > > for
> > > > IDN? They told me I could just deploy their DNS servers to support
> > IDN.",
> > > I
> > > > have to explain IETF standardization, the pros & cons from technical
&
> > > > business perspective, and why they *really* dont want to do so IMO.
> > > >
> > > > I have to do it twice now and it is not fun (not that I get paid for
> > doing
> > > > so either). Of course I am chessed off by this Toronto company!
> Couldnt
> > > they
> > > > just do their own marketing and educating their potential customer
> > > > properly?</whinning>
> > > >
> > > > > P.S. On a related issue: I was wondering whether this is proper
> > > > > operation of IDNA with HTTP, i.e. whether the ToASCII version
> > > > > of the host should be put into the Host: header. The obvious
> > > > > alternative would be to put a MIME-encoded version of the host
> > > > > name into the Host: field, but RFC 2616 is silent on whether
> > > > > this is allowed or not (they say that HTTP is "MIME-like")
> > > >
> > > > RFC 2616 is silent. But IDNA did specify that for any other
protocols,
> > > > unless it is updated to handle IDN, we will default the encoding to
be
> > > > Punycode. So yes, Punycode should be used in Host:.
> > > >
> > > > -James Seng
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>