Subject: [idn] Need a new working group?

From: Dan Oscarsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:58:09 +0100

I have read the new ideas for charter modifications and read
the discussions for a long time. I am beginning to wonder
what is really the meaning of this IDN working group
and as it looks now, maybe we need another new group.

The focus so far by many of the members of the IDN group
have been "host names" with non-ASCII characters.
For me, my interest have always been in defining how
DNS should handle non-ASCII.

Should we split the group into two?

Group one: Non-ASCII in host names from user perspective
Group two: Internationalisation of DNS.

Group one could produce:
- An RFC on how to use ACE on host names to layer non-ASCII
names on top of the old DNS protocol. Must be coodinated with the
group two which defines the DNS protocol.

- An RFC on a good ACE.

- Discuss how domain names are to be input/presented to
the user. The DNS protocol only defines that a domain name
is a sequence of labels (containg any characters) of which
are ordered hiearchically. When displayed to the user, they could
be displayed from top to bottom label, the reverse or with
other separator character then ".".
Discuss on how zone files should be entered in a user friendly way.
Discuss and create recommendations in human handling of
domain names.

Group two should produce:
- An RFC specifying how non-ASCII characters in the DNS protocol
should be handled. It should be a unified solution without
respect to a label being a host name or something else. And should
include all character data, both in labels and in records.
This includes specifying how labels with non-ASCII characters should be
transmitted to software incapable of handling non-ASCII.

- An RFC specifying how to compare two labels to identify if
they match. Like the case-insensitive rule for ASCII today but
for all characters. There are no forbidden character here but
the matching algorithm man ignore some characters during matching.

The reason I would like to see something like this split, is
that the current group seems to have forgotten DNS.
DNS is much more than just host names. We need a basic general
definition of the DNS protocol that includes how to handle
non-ASCII. With that in place, one can build more restrictive
rules and solutions for special areas like host names.

   Dan

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:45:45 +0800

> Group two: Internationalisation of DNS.

There is a group for DNS. It is known as DNSEXT.

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:10:43 -0500

Dan,

The dns work should be done in dnsext.

That said, should _this_ working group divide?

A working group has technical advisors -- this one has Harald and John, both
have some expertise, but neither have the familiarity with CJK characters a
native speaker of a CJK language have. The second group could seek one or more
technical advisors, though I can't off-hand name any former or current IESG or
IAB member who wasn't culturally European.

A working group has area directors -- this one has Erik and Thomas. A second
set of ADs, or a second area advisor, may be necessary. Only Erik knows if he
has the bandwidth and interest in minding two groups.

A working group has a chair, or co-chairs. Process competency and a calm
disposition are required, and anything would be better than having chair
bounce to the microphone/mailing list after every speaker/poster to blurt
out some response. It is distracting, error-prone, and absurdly personal.

There is some generica in the IDNA/Nameprep/ACE work, which is useful for
an IDNI (the 2nd "I" is for "infrastructure"), and the current scope does
not include usefor (chars in netnews headers), 822 (chars in smtp headers),
or ... .

I'd like to see a working group that is more driven by data, implementation
experience, and experimentation, than is the norm in this group.

In any really hard problem area, when it appears that a critical moment is
at hand, it is hard to justify restructuring. Unfortunately, some structures
fail at critical moments.

As the IDN WG made UTF out-of-scope, and shortly will make intermediate
mappings likewise out-of-scope, can't fix its own requirements draft (the
ACE recommendation has been there -05, since April!), either it is shaking
off unnecessary stuff as it rapidly closes on a workable solution, or it is
doing something else less functional. I think its the second.

The critical questions are when does a "dns i18n" BoF form, how clearly do
the contributors to the eventual WG and the contributors to the standing DNS
EXT WG understand their relationship (one evaluates and recommends, either
"informational" or "experimental", the other specifies, "experimental" or
"draft standard"), and how to keep the second WG from being dominated by the
most vocal and least constructive participants of the first WG. Of course,
if the IESG doesn't approve a BoF, then the group would have to work outside
of the work group structure, or try to work within this group.

I've tried the latter, I'm not satisfied. You're not satisfied. Maybe there
are others who aren't satisfied either, and who think your note is useful.
I do.

Eric

---

From: YangWoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:51:59 +0900

> There is a group for DNS. It is known as DNSEXT.

I am sorry but I have not followed up DNSEXT WG. Is DNSEXT WG currently 
dealing with this issue ? If no, what should I do for them to do it ?

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : [email-masked]
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/