Subject: Re: Internationalization and the IETF

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:06:41 -0600 (CST)

Keith Moore <[email-masked]> said:

>The notion that use of languages other than English can or should be 
>'localized' strikes me as both shockingly arrogant and hopelessly naive.  

It strikes me that the underlying assumption that people can't or won't 
deal with numeric addresses may no longer be a valid one, once full  
internationalization of canonical names is a reality.  It would be a lot 
easier for me to handle pure numeric addresses than, for example, 
Chinese characters.  I would hazard a guess that the vast majority 
of Internet message addressing is done automatically through the use of 
bookmarks/hyperlinks or email address books, anyway.  It might be a hassle in 
the original contact to have to type in a sequence of numbers, but 
after that it's back to point and click.

Maybe in the long run we just won't need domain name translation.

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
Information Systems Security Officer
National Business Center
U. S. Dept. of the Interior
[email-masked]
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:09:16 +0100

From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <[email-masked]>

> Maybe in the long run we just won't need domain name translation.

We've done without it thus far for telephone numbers, and that does not seem
to have hampered their use and availability.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:18:54 -0500

> after that it's back to point and click.

Until the destination moves to a new co-loco or they rewire their
machine room.  I have hosts that have had the same hostname but 5 different
IP addresses in as many years.

Let's not forget why we invented DNS in the first place.. ;)
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:40:08 -0500

> to have hampered their use and availability.

Umm.. No. We haven't.  You got a phone book in your office?  Ever dialed
555-1212? ;)
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:43:33 +0100

From: <[email-masked]>

> Umm.. No. We haven't.  You got a phone book in your
> office?  Ever dialed 555-1212?

Not a valid comparison.  Do we have a worldwide, global phonebook that lists
every telephone number on the planet?  No.  Do we have telephones with
keyboards into which you type a name instead of a number?  No.  And yet we
get by very well without them.

---

From: chris d koeberle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:34:56 -0500 (EST)

> get by very well without them.

The issue of how distributed a database can be before it ceases to be a
single database aside, yes, I do have a telephone into which I type a name
instead of a number.  However, the name must be stored on the phone -
analogous to /etc/hosts, not DNS.

You're really muddying two issues, though.  The initial claim, as I
understood it, was that the ability to do DNS lookup was irrelevant, that
one would simply maintain one's own database of "IP numbers I like",
whether one was a computer or a person.  And then, when one of those
computers changed IP addresses, one would...  one would...  wardial all
the IP addresses available until one received the expected response,
presumably.

Yes, the DNS database is much better organized, easily accessible,
thorough, and generally more accurate than what passes for a global phone
number database.  However, I don't think you can deny that there exist
transactions which are worth promoting under IP and telephony which could
not exist without such semi-authoritative databases.  

With that in mind, what is your claim, again?

-= flail? http://flail.com/ =-
 -= the online comic strip =-

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:59:05 -0700 (MST)

> every telephone number on the planet?  No.

Yes. 555-1212 (and it's regional equivalents).

>  Do we have telephones with
> keyboards into which you type a name instead of a number?  No.

Instead, we have voice-enabled devices that we speak into.

It's still name-to-address mapping.

--lyndon

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:31:55 +0100

> Yes. 555-1212 (and it's regional equivalents).

No.  That number only works in certain places, for certain numbers, not
everywhere for everything.

> It's still name-to-address mapping.

But it is not universal and worldwide.

DNS may represent the same oversight that IP addressing schemes have
included thus far.  Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the
experience of the telephone network.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:47:11 -0500

At 09:06 AM 12/7/00 -0600, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
>I would hazard a guess that the vast majority
>bookmarks/hyperlinks or email address books, anyway.

This line of reasoning has shown up regularly for 20 years, or so.  Yes, 
before the web.  The claim, then, was about email address book dominance.

However much such point-and-click mechanisms get used, there remains the 
need for human-to-human, non-electronic transfer of addresses, be they 
email or web, on billboards, business cards, and the like.

If we did not already have very wide-scale use of ascii, it might be worth 
considering numerals as the common form.  But that wide-scale use is 
everywhere.

The entire point behind the IDN effort is to let communities use domain 
names in a form that is particularly comfortable for that community.

This does not eliminate a "common" form; nor does it show up any particular 
deficiencies of ascii as that form, nor benefits of digits as the form.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:52:05 -0800

At 02:43 PM 12/7/00 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>every telephone number on the planet?

yes. we call it "411". If the operator doesn't have the information, s/he 
redirects you to someone who does.

>keyboards into which you type a name instead of a number?

Yes. we enter them manually, which is a pain, but I have ten such buttons 
on my phone, and my cell phone has space for about 30.

>And yet we get by very well without them.

that's not obvious either. If I want to call you, I have to track down your 
phone number. I can't just call the operator and say "connect me to Anthony 
Atkielski". But I can find your email address pretty quickly with a web 
browser, and atkielski.com isn't too hard to come by.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:18:37 -0800 (PST)

% that's not obvious either. If I want to call you, I have to track down your 
% phone number. I can't just call the operator and say "connect me to Anthony 
% Atkielski". But I can find your email address pretty quickly with a web 
% browser, and atkielski.com isn't too hard to come by.

Buzzt.  1000 times on the chauk board:
	The DNS is not a directory service...

-- 
--bill

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:49:24 -0800

> 	The DNS is not a directory service...

but it's an address registry?