Subject: [dnsext] A definition of "same"

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:49:18 +0100

Given the discussion in the App open meeting, here is an example of
"same" in DNS:

	users accessing domains under any of the equivalent IDN ccTLDs
	expect that such domains will resolve to the same address or
	value. 

This quote is from the announcement "Proposed Implementation Plan
for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs"
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22mar10-en.htm>.

	jaap

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:21:17 +0100

This seems A record informed, rather than RRSet informed.

I decode this as no assistance desired, or possible (it is "equivalent
IDN ccTLDs" and the time frame is quite short) so we can go on to
solve other problems.

Eric

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:03:30 -0300

Actually, I believe the quoted document, in addition to rivaling Vogon
in its clarity, brevity, and readability,
is talking about root delegations (only) to deemed-equivalent (cc)TLDs.

So, it's both requiring our assistance, and is kind of an ideal case
to consider (as in the simplest situation):

Two (or more) labels in the root zone, need to be resolved to their
respective TLDs, where those TLDs are delegation-only, and the TLD
content needs to be identical.

Whether the content *of* those TLDs contains any
equivalent/bundled/IDN labels, is actually unimportant, per se. If
"example.foo" and "example.bar" are resolved, and ".foo" and ".bar"
are such equivalent IDN-ccTLDs, then the RRsets of both should always
be identical, for a given $example.

What needs to be addressed, are what are the mechanisms by which the
two (or more) TLDs can be kept in sync, and/or what protocol
implications are there to schemes to keeping such TLDs effectively
identical?

And, I'm pretty sure we should consider DNSSEC in-scope for this...

Of course, I'm not in a position to make the call, but that's how it
appears to me.

Brian

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:13:16 +0100

> is talking about root delegations (only) to deemed-equivalent (cc)TLDs.

There's nothing in Note Wells that prevents contributors from joining
others working problems that exist in 3166, and when the problem
domain is restricted to this "ideal case", the problem is the
continued existence of a pair of 3166 code points, together with a
more recent "one script per" rule from another allocator.

A good solution to the general problem will benefit users of
Simplified, and Traditional, Chinese scripts, by in large mutually
intelligible. The benefit will be as pervasive as each script's use,
and naturally unrestricted to specific namespaces, their operators and
their policy constraints.

A solution to the special case will benefit a party seeking policy
goals only tangentially related to literacy or identifiers.

Personally I find the former worth pursuing, though not the latter.

Eric