Subject: Re: [precis] [iucg] Internet User review: IDNA2008 follow-up at IETF/PRECIS and ICANN/VIP

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:35:47 +0200

Jefsey,

I have carefully read this. It is the basis for a key IUTF draft (IETF is
Internet Engineering, IUTF is emerging Intelligent Use, IUCG is their de
facto working liaison). I think all of this will become much clearer to all
of us with experimentation, hence after development and testing.

However, there will be sometime before this (end of the year?) and there can
be misunderstandings before over some terms. We need to avoid that. The
VIP/etc. proposition and the IAB efforts start with a glossary proposition.
We have already prepared formated texts with IAB and ICANN glossary
documents. We had to start adding our own ones for information. So, everyone
can piggyback a global list.

I think at the confusion between what we name polynyms (the different names
of the same thing/address) and alias (an personal name for something CNAME
or on my mobile menu, etc.) with what VIP discussed. The word alias is not
even used in RFC 2672 which describes DNAME VIP wants to discuss in part.
Obviously the difficulty is that each party (technical with IETF,
operatio-legal with ICANN, lead-usage with us) has its own vision,
experience, independance.

I started gathering the terms at  http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

I added the problem statement of PRECIS.
It could be great if you could review it.

Anyone can send me comments on the VIP, PRECIS and IUCG lists.
I hope this help.

Portzamparc

2011/7/29 JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>

>
> Jean-Michel,
>
> I agree with you. However, things are not that simple. Andrew Sullivan
> asked for an algorithm and he is right: machines and systems need
> algorithms. What you emphasize is that in our cases (Variants, Stringprep
> replacement, IDNA support on the user side, extended services naming,
> IUsers' expectations, etc.) the algorithmic nature is just as precise as the
> mathematical algorithm that Andrew expects, but it obeys an entirely
> different logic because it also involves a brain to brain level. We have the
> tool (fringe to fringe as permitted by IDNA2008 and  exemplified in RFC
> 5895) to support it but we first have to understand and document this logic.
>
> Therefore, we first need to get everyone who shares this burden to accept
> that their approach is to be shared with others and to understand that their
> logic and the logic of the others will help, but that the final logic cannot
> be a common logic. It is  a new logic to we have to explore in common. Their
> experience and the experience of the others are needed but the case that we
> have to address is totally new.
>
> T
>