[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Plan Re: [Fwd: Request for Advice on VGRS IDN Announcement]

As stated in my original note below, although it is the IAB's
job to put together the reply to ICANN, this seems to be a topic
that would benefit from broader input than just the IAB.  I'd
suggested involving the IESG; there have been other suggestions
for wider input.

Here's a proposal (and I missed the IESG call this week, where
I understand some of this was discussed -- this proposal therefore
doesn't completely reflect that and can be updated as appropriate):

	. I'd suggest Rob and/or Ted be the IAB token holder
	  on this effot
	. Patrik clearly has put thinking into this and
	  has the largest chunk of written text -- if this
	  overall plan seems to fit, I'd suggest Patrik work
	  with Rob/Ted to create a general technical document
	  on the subject
	. that document should see wider than IAB/IESG review
	  (well, we've been doing that with most IAB docs of
	  late)

Also, in discussion with Ted earlier in the week, it seemed
useful to suggest that a small group of IETF technical folk
(not strictly IAB/IESG folk, necessarily) talk informally
with VeriSign technical folk, so that the IETF can make a
statement based on what is actually being done (instead of trying
to guess from web pages etc).  This would be a fact-finding
discussion -- I wouldn't expect it to change peoples' minds, but I
do think it reflects better on us (the IETF) to have a statement
that clearly is based on facts, not inferences.

Proposed list of participants in, for example, a phone call:
	. Rob Austein
	. Harald Alvestrand
	. Steve Bellovin
	. Randy Bush
	. Patrik Faltstrom
	. Ted Hardie
	. Lars-Johan Liman

Kinds of things that could be made clearer in such a call is the
difference of behaviours that Harald observed in his note.

Because this is not specifically my area of competence, and because
I'm currently employed by VeriSign, it's my intention to stay involved
to the extent of ensuring that the IAB makes as clear and as
honest an IETF technical statement as it usually does on any topic, but
I'm not delving into the technical debate itself.

Thoughts?

Leslie.

Leslie Daigle wrote:

As expected, here is ICANN's request for input. I suggest
the IAB should work on putting together a reply and/or a
statement, with the help of interested IESG folk.

Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Request for Advice on VGRS IDN Announcement
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:37:59 -0800
From: M. Stuart Lynn <lynn@icann.org>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
CC: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, Brad Verd <bverd@verisign.com>, Masanobu Katoh <MKATOH@mkatoh.net>, Steve Crocker <steve@stevecrocker.com>, Vint Cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>, Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>, Andrew McLaughlin <McLaughlin@icann.org>

Dear Leslie,

Below is a note seeking IAB advice on a technical question pertinent to
ICANN DNS coordination activities. I would very much appreciate your consulting
with the IAB and letting me know any advice at your earliest
convenience.

Warm regards,

Stuart

================================================================
To the Internet Architecture Board:

On Friday, VeriSign Global Registry Services announced a set of steps
relating to the implementation of internationalized domain name
capabilities, including changes in the behavior of the authoritative
name servers for the com and net zones. The announcement is at
<http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06058.html>. The
announcement appears to anticipate the RFC Editor's publication of
the remaining component documents that define IDNA (Internationalized
Domain Names in Applications), the standards-track output of the
IETF's IDN Working Group.

In response to the VGRS announcement, some commentators have raised
concerns that VGRS's plan for handling DNS requests containing
non-ASCII octets would be contrary to DNS standards. In particular,
see the communication from Paul Hoffman of the Internet Mail Consortium,
included with attachment below.

In keeping with ICANN's commitment to seek authoritative technical
guidance from the IETF about the relationship of actual or proposed DNS
operations to the IETF's standards-track activities, we are requesting
the advice of the IAB (together with the IESG or other IETF bodies, if
appropriate) about the announced VGRS changes to the behavior of the
.com and .net name servers. Although ICANN's focus must be on
violations of standards VGRS has agreed to follow, we would also welcome
any IAB comment on effects the VGRS changes may have on architecture for
the protocols and procedures used by the Internet.

I am copying Brad Verd and Chuck Gomes of VGRS on this message, and also
actively invite any input or response VGRS may wish to give. We will also be referring the issue raised in Paul Hoffman's e-mail to ICANN's IDN Committee and Security and Stability Committee.

Sincerely,

Stuart Lynn

cc: Chuck Gomes, Vice President for Policy and Compliance, VGRS
Brad Verd, Resolution Systems Operations Manager, VGRS
Masanobu Katoh, Chair, ICANN IDN Committee
Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Security & Stability Committee


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:phoffman@imc.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:18 PM
To: mclaughlin@pobox.com
Cc: Louis Touton; Patrik Faltstrom
Subject: Serious technical problems with VGRS's announcement


Greetings. This message follows up on the announcement from VeriSign
GRS (the com/net registry) that they will start responding to DNS
requests that contain non-ASCII octets and giving positive answers
when they should be giving negative answers. VGRS's announcement is
at <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06058.html>.

There are many technical problems with this change. It essentially
undermines IDNA, which is now on standards track, by adding a level
of guessing to the DNS that IDNA is explicitly designed to avoid.
Further, it makes it appear that IDNs are only useful in domain names
for web sites (and only for sites in .com and .net), and only at the
second level. VGRS has said that their plug-in will not work with
most of the ccTLDs, for example.

For example, if you enter <a-ring>.com in Internet Explorer for
Windows, where "<a-ring>" is the single hex octet 0xE5, you see the
screen shown in the attached file called "e5.tif". (Sorry about the
TIFF image, but it's the only reliable format for PC screen dumps.)
As you can see, VGRS makes wild guesses about what the user wanted,
some of which are very clearly impossible. Worse yet, they do not
include all of the legal guesses that they could have made. And, just
to make it completely confusing to the user, not all of the choices
work.

The DNS is not supposed to be a best-guess service, yet VGRS has
turned .com and .net into this just before IDNA is to be an RFC. VGRS
should not be allowed, through its monopoly on the .com and .net
gTLDs, to destroy the coherence of the DNS for its own short-term
profit. ICANN should demand that VGRS immediately stop giving
incorrect answers to any query in .com and .net, and should instead
follow the IETF standards. If VGRS refuses, ICANN should re-delegate
the .com and .net zones to registries that are more willing to follow
the DNS standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium