Subject: RFC - 2229 / Dictionary Server Protocol

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:26:42 +0530

Hi,

  I have just joined the IETF mailing list. I'm not sure if this is
the right forum to post this, but I think it's the place to start.

  This is with reference to the RFC-2229 on Dictionary Server Protocol
(Oct, 1997).

  I have some updations to the protocol and I would like to put them
up for discussion. What is all that I need to do so?

   Do I need to post the completed new RFC as I have with updates or
should I put only updates?
   What should be the format of the updates? Would a plain text
attachment with updates do?

   In a nutshell, the updates include the following:

  - Defining character sets (esp, support for unicode)
  - Defining locales (support for non en_US dictionaries)
  - Defining output formats (support for XML format besides current plain text)
  - Extensions to the current method of defining and matching words
(with support for references to other words in same or other
dictionaries)
  - Support to list full dictionary-words
  - Updates to the current URL form.
  - Updates to how the interaction happens (esp the initial server
response, getting capabilities, server info, supported charsets,
available locales etc)

  I would be better posting only updates. ;-)

NB: I have CC'ed the original authors.

-- 
Cheers,
Gaurav Vaish
http://www.mastergaurav.org
http://mastergaurav.blogspot.com
--------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:00:19 +0100

Gaurav Vaish wrote:

 [RfC 2229] 
> I have some updations to the protocol and I would like to put
> them up for discussion. What is all that I need to do so?

It's an informational RfC, so maybe you should try to contact
the authors.  You probably know <http://dict.org> to find the
"dict community" if there is a "dict community", I've no idea.

If the dict authors and / or community like your ideas to
update this rather old protocol, you could publish an I-D
(Internet draft), after reading Paul's "IETF Tao" and some
related memos.

One thing you probably want to update is chapter 5 with the
dict: URL scheme, at the moment it's still based on RfC 1738,
use RfC 3986.  For that part of the discussion you could use
the <uri.w3.org> mailing list.

> - Defining character sets (esp, support for unicode)

IIRC dict has UTF-8 as default.  If your updates would break
existing implementations you should really discuss it with the
authors.
         Bye, Frank
-- 
<gopher://dict.org:2628/?DEFINE%20*%20?xyzzy>

---

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:50:14 +0530

> "dict community" if there is a "dict community", I've no idea.

   I'm not sure what you mean by "Informational RFC". It provides
extension to existing functionality.

   Alas but I couldn't find any dict.org community. And the only
contact address that I found in dict.org ftp site was of the original
rfc-2229 authoer - Faith.

   And I'm still waiting a response from him. Luckily, the mail has
not bounced from a 7yr old email. :-)

> (Internet draft), after reading Paul's "IETF Tao" and some

   What if the authors do not respond or community does not exist.
No... I don't intened to infuse fire, but just talking about a
possibility.

   Is there any place / forum where I can approach... or can I
directly put up an I-D?

> use RfC 3986.  For that part of the discussion you could use

   Hmm... that's pretty new one. I'd check it up and use it. I'm not
sure right now, but it may break the old URI which is of the form:

   dict://userinfo@host:port/d:word:database
   dict://userinfo@host:port/m:word:database:stratey

> existing implementations you should really discuss it with the

   No. It will still continue to support UTF-8 encoding. As a matter
of fact, and as also Randy pointed out, charset Unicode with UTF-8
encoding is the major support that I want to have. ASCII with UTF-8
remains the default.

   Other encodings include UTF-7, MIME etc provided there's enough
support in the underlying charset (taking a clue from SMTP / MIME
RFCs, encoding of mail-messages) -- not sure if I'm making some sense
here.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:17 +0100

Gaurav Vaish wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by "Informational RFC".

I'm also not sure, but you got me... :-)  RfC 2229 is "only"
an informational RfC, and I don't know who could update or
replace it without the consent of the original authors.

The copyright statement apparently allows to create an Internet
standard derived from RfC 2229, but IANAL and still trying to
figure out how the "normal" IETF standards process works.

> can I directly put up an I-D?

Yes, you can publish your ideas as I-D.  One way to create an
I-D is <http://xml.resource.org/>, if you like XML for this
purpose.  Otherwise you could still use its "A. Mouse" demo to
get a valid template.

 [RfC 3986]
> Hmm... that's pretty new one.

It's a standard, you can't ignore it.  The old dict: scheme
was registered because it was a "grandfathered" case, IANA had
the dict port in their port registry, but not the dict URL in
their URL registry, now that's fixed.

A lot of drafts try to salvage old 1738 schemes like gopher:,
file:, ftp:, news:, etc., because they want to get rid of the
old 1738 a.s.a.p.  So far wais: and prospero: are declared to
be "historic".  The worst case is RfC 2368 mailto:, see also
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-00
for an idea how to attack this problem.  For details with the
other schemes see the W3C URI list (despite its name it's more
an IETF list).

> dict://userinfo@host:port/m:word:database:stratey

Not worse than ftp:, news:, or nntp: for the "authority" part.

 [charsets]
> not sure if I'm making some sense here.

Don't mention UTF-7, you get it if you want all MIME compatible
charsets. there's no reason to mention it explicitly.  <gd&r>

                            Bye, Frank

---

From: Baker Fred <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:50:46 -0500

> replace it without the consent of the original authors.

I have some bed-time reading for you:

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt
2026 The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3. S. Bradner. October
      1996. (Format: TXT=86731 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1602) (Updated by
      RFC3667, RFC3668, RFC3932, RFC3979, RFC3978) (Also BCP0009) 
(Status:
      BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3667.txt
3667 IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner. February 2004. (Format:
      TXT=43297 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3978) (Updates RFC2026) (Status:
      BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3668.txt
3668 Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology. S. Bradner.
      February 2004. (Format: TXT=41365 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3979)
      (Updates RFC2026, RFC2028) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3932.txt
3932 The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures. H. Alvestrand.
      October 2004. (Format: TXT=17093 bytes) (Updates RFC3710, RFC2026)
      (Also BCP0092) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3979.txt
3979 Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology. S. Bradner, Ed..
      March 2005. (Format: TXT=41366 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3668) (Updates
      RFC2028, RFC2026) (Also BCP0079) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

          ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3978.txt
3978 IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner, Ed.. March 2005.
      (Format: TXT=43574 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3667) (Updates RFC2026) 
(Also
      BCP0078) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

---

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:25:49 +0530

> replace it without the consent of the original authors.

   Seems like "I Gotcha!". :D

> Yes, you can publish your ideas as I-D.  One way to create an

   I think, if I don't receive a response from the original authors
within a day or two, I'll take up the (tedious) task of making I-D and
putting it up. Not quite sure how long does it take for final
approval... :-?

> It's a standard, you can't ignore it.  The old dict: scheme

   Not ignoring it. It's just that it's a new one.. and I hadn't
noticed it. Jan-2005: very recent.

> was registered because it was a "grandfathered" case, IANA had

   I think my new dict: scheme may break the old one. But that should be ok.
   The new scheme will make it live longer... and across versions:
making a little more generic and extensive. :-)

> charsets. there's no reason to mention it explicitly.  <gd&r>

  I agree. :D
  However, at this point, I give the server "MAY" status for the
various charsets. "MUST" will be only with UTF-8 and MIME. It can be
debated upon once I put up I-D.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:24:02 +0100

Baker Fred wrote:

> I have some bed-time reading for you

Thanks, excl. the new 3978/3979 I had read these texts.
Looking again into 2026 I'm still not sure how Gaurav
could handle this if the authors don't answer.  And if
the "inventors" of IsNot also "invented" dict he might
need a lawyer _before_ publishing any I-D.  Bye, Frank

---

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:42:50 +0530

>From 2229 (C) statement:
<quote>
------------------------
   However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.
------------------------
</quote>

   I think the authors have given permissions to modify it so that it
can be updated for developing Internet standards -- which, IMO, gives
me permissions - without requiring an explicit one from the authors -
to go ahead.

> need a lawyer _before_ publishing any I-D.  Bye, Frank

  Can I create "my own Dict-Serv" protocol? As a matter of fact, I
thought about DictServ protocol sitting on my laptop and doing some
work... after doing a lot work, it just came to my mind to see if
anything exists. RFC was the last thing on my mind and the first
response from Google.

   I was looking to SOAP-implementations and that's why you'd also see
a mention of XML in the response formats.

   Or instead... I'd then go to W3C and ask for a standard
SOAP-data-exchange-format for dictionary. However, it will be in SOAP
(over HTTP to start with).

---

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:53:05 +0530

>    Or instead... I'd then go to W3C and ask for a standard

And I just forgot how costly it is to be a member of W3C :D

---

From: Gaurav Vaish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:02:18 +0530

Wooaah!

   Great to see your mail, Rik.

> [email-masked] mailing list.  This is the mailing list for the

   Another "great to see".

> I wasn't able to find mail from you dated prior to yesterday (maybe the
> spam filters got it).

   Yikes. And there's something to hate the spam filters. ;-)

> composed of characters from the UCS character set [ISO10644] using the

   It seems I missed this point. It means, I have to implement one thing less.

> RFC 2229 also explains how to add experimental extensions to the

   I'm not sure what you mean by experimental extensions. They are
extensions -- I'll forward my original mail to you once again. But I
don't want to take them as "experimental" but want to take them
forward to "production".

> [email-masked], then you'll probably get a lot of feedback regarding

   Thanks. I will start a discussion on the mailing list.

---

From: Rik Faith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:11:55 -0500

On Mon 14 Mar 2005 08:50:14 +0530,
> rfc-2229 authoer - Faith.

http://www.dict.org/links.html tells how to subscribe to the
[email-masked] mailing list.  This is the mailing list for the
"dict.org community".

> encoding is the major support that I want to have. ASCII with UTF-8

RFC 2229 already says "By default, the text of the definitions MUST be
composed of characters from the UCS character set [ISO10644] using the
UTF-8 [RFC2044] encoding."  Several existing DICT server implementations
already serve Unicode databases using UTF-8 (see, for example,
http://freedict.org/en/).

RFC 2229 also explains how to add experimental extensions to the
protocol.  If you implement such extensions, and post about them on
[email-masked], then you'll probably get a lot of feedback regarding
how useful they are and how well they interact with existing DICT
protocol implementations.