Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

You will not misinterpret me if you include my words in entirety and not try
to take anything out of context.
IDN challenges is not a simple issue James, and definitely it does not boil
down to any yes or no question.  Please do not create a fake sense of
simplicity for the community.  There is a multitude of issues and you know
as well as I do and many in this list that it is critical for the success of
IDNs for more people to understand those challenges.  I personally is quite
passionate to see that IDN is successfully deployed and used.

By the way, there is a discussion at ICANN on IDN Registry implementation, I
am not sure if this is also the right forum to discuss implementation.  Does
the people in this group think this is the right place also to discuss these
issues?  (it will include character equivalence preparation issues, and
since this group have rightly dismissed the discussion for the sake of the
"protocol", I am not sure if we should raise this dead horse from the ground
in this list)... what do people think?...

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 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing


> Please dont obscure it by marketing talk.
>
> Is that a yes or no? I dont want to misinterpret your email.
>
> -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 10:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing
>
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I think I have made it quite clear.
> > Neteka provides tools, products and services for all facets of TLD
> registry
> > systems.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> > >     Did Neteka advertise a server-side resolution DNS?
> >
> > Of course DNS resolution includes a server-side element.
> > If you are asking about IDN, we resolve Punycode.
> > If you are asking about Punycode conversion, yes our servers do that for
> > administration and DNS Zone preparations.
> >
> > If this is not clear enough for you, I am happy to discuss with you
> > off-list.
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> > PS.  I have recently been working on a number of documents on IDN
> > Operations, that discusses mainly issues around character equivalence
> > preparation and management.  More specifically taking the discussional
> > IDN-ADMIN document to create a more generic technical framework that is
> > capable of allowing different registries to develop their policies
freely,
> > yet driving towards a standard EPP implementation that could take care
of
> > the different needs of registries.  Since this is not the right forum
for
> > this particular discussion, I have not included the documents.  But I
will
> > be more than happy to share it with anyone who might be interested and
> > comments will be very valuable to help improve the documents.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>