Subject: [dnsext] WG meeting or interim meeting about "name equivalence"

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:17:45 -0500

Dear colleagues,

As you may recall, Olafur and I announced some time ago that we were
planning not to convene a WG meeting in Anaheim unless something
significant came up or we had signficant interest expressed.

We have determined that the recent discussion of the general topic of
making two names completely equivalent in the DNS requires some
real-time conversation.  We have two options before us.

The first is to schedule a session at the Anaheim meeting.

The second is to schedule an interim WG virtual meeting.  There have
been a number of recent such virtual meetings in other WGs, and we
think this might be an appropriate thing for us to do.  If we were to
do this, we would aim for mid-February.  It would probably happen at
about 10:00 EST, because that seems to provide _fairly_ global
availability even though it inconveniences just about everyone (we are
painfully aware that Olafur and I get off easy under this suggestion,
but if we move it earlier it's too early for the US West Coast and if
we move it any later it's way too late for anyone in the broad
Asia-Pacific region, whose residents have a significant stake in one
aspect of this issue).  Note that if we hold the interim, we'll
request an Anaheim WG meeting slot anyway in case a follow-up meeting
is warranted.  We'll decide after the interim whether we need another
meeting and, if so, when it should be; but we really anticipate making
decisions in this meeting.  Scheduling the Anaheim session would
really be a hedge.

In favour of having a session at Anaheim is that it gives us more lead
time to prepare, conforms with IETF conventions, allows us to put
faces and names together, and encourages hallway side conversations
that can easily result in a better answer than anything that has come
up in the meeting rooms.

In favour of holding a virtual interim is that it does not require
everyone to travel to Califiornia, it can be held sooner, and it might
attract some participants who do not plan to be in Anaheim, but who
are interested in this area (remember that IDNABIS is not likely to
meet, so a significant community of input to this discussion may well
not be in Anaheim).

We would like participants' feedback on which of these options they
prefer, and which of these would be acceptable to them (i.e. would you
participate in that option)?  We are especially interested in feedback
from those who have already committed to write something (or who have
already so written) on this topic.  From those people, we would _also_
like to know whether you could have a draft prepared in time for a
mid-Feb. meeting -- we think drafts would need to be available no
later than the end of January, giving participants roughly two weeks
for review and thought.

Please let us know by the end of this week.  We'll announce a decision
next Monday.

Best regards,

Andrew and Olafur

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:07:18 -0800

> meet, so a significant community of input to this discussion may well

That sort-of assumes that the folks involved in IDNABIS would have no
other reason to be in Anaheim, which does not match my personal
sense of IDNABIS.

Perhaps more importantly, I think a conversation on "name equivalence"
held in the context of an IETF is more likely to get you discussion of what
kinds of equivalence different applications and deployments desire.  I
don't think you'll get that in a virtual meeting.

My personal suggestion would be to run this as a pseudo-BoF.  Do the
same kinds of outreach (to APPs, to RAI, etc.) that you would do for
a BoF in this space, and expect some of the same kinds of cross-area
tourist activity.  In this particular case, I personally think that would be
a good thing.

Two cents from someone who hasn't promised anything,

Ted

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:31:23 +0000

On 4 Jan 2010, at 22:17, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> about 10:00 EST

I think this would be a good idea.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:18:21 -0500

Andrew,

My preference is for the longer lead time and the face to face.

Not all of the use case scenarios arise out of an IDNAbis necessity 
for a vehicle for handling variants.

Few, if any, of the policy based requests for mechanism will consider 
anything other than names, or side effects. At ICANN Seoul a large 
fraction of the policy based requestors assumed that DNAME did it all, 
which is not the case.

Eric

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:39:03 +0100

> other reason to be in Anaheim, which does not match my personal

I think a number of IDNABIS people will be in Anaheim. I am for example planning to be there.

   Patrik

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:51:07 -0800

>I think a number of IDNABIS people will be in Anaheim. I am for example planning to be there.

The registries for whom IDNAbis has caused new problems that require "name equivalence" are probably not going to be in Anaheim, given that they have not been active at almost any other IETF meeting since Dublin. The registries for whom IDNA2003 and IDNAbis has always caused problems that require "name equivalence" already have people on namedroppers.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:02:36 -0500

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> If we were to
> aspect of this issue).

Please use GMT to for proposing time. It's hard for people to relate to
your local time. 10:00 EST translates to 15:00 GMT.

My counter to this especially if it is important for Asia-Pacific region
is to move it to 22:00 GMT which would be much better for them.

Danny

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:32:56 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Mayer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] WG meeting or interim meeting about "name equivalence"

> your local time. 10:00 EST translates to 15:00 GMT.

GMT is better. 

15:00 GMT (beijing time is 23:00 pm) 

> is to move it to 22:00 GMT which would be much better for them.

22:00 GMT (beijing time is 6:00 am)

if the meeting runs for 2 hours, 22:00 GMT is better.

Thanks.

Yao Jiankang

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:30:40 -0500

As I mentioned earlier Danny, there are one or more use cases for "idn 
equivalence(s)", however, non-latin IDNs extend to UTC+2 (Athens), and 
this does not exhaust the set of use cases.

Agree on the GMT vs local-to-foo point.

Eric

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:51:10 -0500

> this does not exhaust the set of use cases.

Yes, just add Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Finnish, Greek, Turkish, Arabic
and Hebrew and you have most of Europe and the Middle East just to name
a few...

Danny