Subject: [Crisp] registration rules

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:19:39 -0500

One of the action items I had regarding the DREG2 conversation during  
the CRISP session at the IETF was to send a use case for the  
<listRegistrationRules> to this list.

So here is the one that came to mind.  Suppose I have the following  
domain: exämple.com.  And I want to know what xn-- domains the  
registration system may consider a variant.  The <findDomainsByIDN>  
query is only suppose to return the xn-- domains that are actually in  
the registration system.  It was not intended to calculate all the  
possible variants and send them back to the client (because that  
could potentially be a very big list, and the client could do this  
just as easily if it knew the registration rules).

So the following query is sent:

     <listRegistrationRules
       xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg2" >
       <baseDomain>com</baseDomain>
       <ruleSubject>idn</ruleSubject>
     </listRegistrationRules>

The server responds with:

       <registrationRule xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg2"
         authority="com" registryType="dreg2"
         entityClass="registration-rule" entityName="rule1" >

         <ruleId> ONEWORLDGOVERNMENT-IDN-2005-10 </ruleId>
         <subRuleId> ONLY-LATIN </subRuleId>

       </registrationRule>

The variants of exämple.com, and any other domain in .com, can then  
be calculated because the client software was pre-programmed with the  
knowledge for how to do domain variants for registration systems that  
abide by the given registration rule.

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

---

From: Robert Martin-Legene <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:36:14 -0800

> abide by the given registration rule.

Hello Andy.

Interesting rule name ;-)

Is this ruleId in a registry somewhere, or how does the client find it?

Which brings along questions of how to add and modify to the rulesets..

-- robert

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:40:59 -0500

> Which brings along questions of how to add and modify to the  

Well, the version given suggests an IANA registry.  Updating the well- 
known identifiers would simply be a matter of adding to the IANA  
registry.  This working group can determine the criteria for adding  
to this IANA registry (does it require just asking IANA, does a  
request require expert review, does an RFC have to be published).

Of course, I can also think how this would might be annoying to  
some.  So perhaps we add an authority attribute so their can be  
multiple registries.  Something like:

         <ruleId authority="ONEWORLDGOVERNMENT.org"> IDN-2005-10 </ 
ruleId>
         <subRuleId> ONLY-LATIN </subRuleId>

       </registrationRule>

I do prefer this method, now that I think about it.  But I'm fine  
with either.

-andy

---

From: Robert Martin-Legene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:29:18 -0800

> I do prefer this method, now that I think about it.  But I'm fine

Yeah, I was thinking that would be fancy too. But then the programmers
(or whoever preloads the rulesets into some type of client) wouldn't
know how many registries there are & where they are. His client would
one day end up on an iris-server which will give him an authority he
never heard of. Since we concluded it was difficult to write a
language for describing these rules, he can't just automatically pull
it down and parse it.

Given that, it's probably enough to just ask IANA for a registration.
ID's takes time to become RFCs. IDN Language Tables are also just a
matter of sending a mail to IANA, and it seems to work fine (maybe
likewise limit it to TLD's).

I don't know if it's realistic to ask for expert review? Is there a
forum where these experts meet? I mean, this wg shouldn't last
forever.

My 2 ører.

-- robert

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:04:52 -0500

> language for describing these rules, he can't just automatically pull

Fair enough.

> forum where these experts meet? I mean, this wg shouldn't last

For an expert reviewer, I think we just give IANA the following  
instructions: "Before adding anything to this registry, please clear  
it with Robert Martin-Legene first."

I don't think we need an expert review.

-andy

---

From: Robert Martin-Legene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:05 -0800

> it with Robert Martin-Legene first."

I may be on vacation ;-)

-- robert

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:48:48 -0500

I may be missing something here, but...

Any existing IDN equivalence rule sets are developed outside
the IETF (though possibly published as IETF informationals).
The point is -- we don't expect equivalence rulesets to become
IETF business.  So, an IANA registry would be about creating
these tags and associating them with existing other published
documents, right?  With unknown (and variable) rates of revision
for the ruleset documents (through a publication cycle, vote at
ICANN meeting, constitutional referendum within a country, whatever).

It seems like the association will be loose, at best.

Which comes back to Robert's point about not having an IANA
registry -- that programmers won't be able to write software
to decode the rules that they don't already know about.  I.e.,
I'm thinking the concern may be as applicable in this sort of
IANA registry as it is in free-form authority assertion model
(your second proposal), only the IANA registry is a lot more
overhead.

Again -- I may be missing something critical here...

Leslie.

Andrew Newton wrote:
> instructions: "Before adding anything to this registry, please clear  it 
> with Robert Martin-Legene first."
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:09:55 -0500

> (your second proposal), only the IANA registry is a lot more

Yeah.  It does sound like more overhead.

> Again -- I may be missing something critical here...

I don't think so.

-andy