Subject: [idn] IDN rechartering rev 3

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 00:46:12 +0800

This is based a lot more on Dave's suggestion then mine.

The Goal & Milestone section is revised. Note that the key milestone
which is really of interest to IESG is the "initial draft" and "move
forward for IESG".

Please comment

-James Seng

---
Domain Names are Internet identifiers. They are used both for
machine and human processing, so the form of a Domain Name must
be convenient for both processing venues.  The current set of valid
Domain Name characters is limited to common Internet ASCII, which
is inadequate for the broad range of human Internet users.  This
working group will produce a standards-track specification for
extending the range of characters that can be used in Domain Names,
by humans. The enhancement will be designed to minimize changes to
existing Domain Name software and operations. In particular, changes
to the DNS infrastructure of storage and exchange mechanisms will
be avoided.

The technical approach for the current specification effort shall be to
permit use of international character, as recommended by the IAB, and
then encode the characters, to permit their transmission and storage
within existing DNS mechanisms.  Hence this enhancement to the DNS
involves only end-user software.  In particular software that needs to
be changed is restricted to:  DNS client.  No other modules will need
to be changed.

Language information is not encoded in these identifiers.  That is,
"names" from different languages are defined in a single namespace.

The WG will rely on, and reference, work from established efforts to
internationalize digital characters, such as, Unicode Consortium and
ISO/IEC.  Discussion of new codepoints, codepoint properties and
mappings between codepoints is appropriate for these other venues,
and is out of scope of this working group.

The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should
administer or control usage of names that use this functionality.

The group will identify consequences to the current deployed DNS
infrastructure, the protocols and the applications as well as transition
scenarios, where applicable.

The working group will actively ensure communication with interested
groups who are studying the same, or related, topics.

The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are:

1.  An Informational RFC specifying the requirements for providing
International character sets in domain names. The document should
provide guidance for developing solutions to this problem, taking
localized (e.g. writing order) and related operational issues into
consideration.

2.  A standard track specification on permitting international
characters
in domain names, including specifying any transition issues.

3.  A standard track specification on an ASCII Compatible Encoding
(ACE),
to be used in the standard track specification on permitting
international
characters in domain names.

4.  A standard track specification on normalization of domain name
identifiers for the purpose of string comparisons. This document may
include case folding, map outs, and prohibited characters.

Goal & Milestone:

Dec 2001        ACE specification send to IESG for advancement

Nov 2001        domain name identifiers normalization draft last call
Dec 2001 domain name identifiers normalization draft send to IESG
                for advancement

Nov 2001        Draft of architecture relating input methods, namepreps
                and zonefiles
Dec 2001        Second draft of architecture draft
Feb 2002        Architecture draft last call
Mar 2002        Architecture draft send to IESG for advancement

Dec 2001        IDN Protocol draft wg last call
Jan 2002        IDN Protocol draft send to IESG for advancement

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:12:18 -0600

How does this realignment conform to the plurality of independent voices
on this list who have expressed a desire for a UTF-8 label encoding?

Also, how does it conform to prior statements:

James Seng/Personal, Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:30:02 +0800:

> We encourage further submission of drafts but take note that no draft
> will be accepted as wg drafts unless it comes with at least 7
> supportors.

Some sort of warning that ongoing work would not be accepted would be
preferred to an immediate cancellation of such efforts.

I would suggest that you delay such rechartering until after the Salt Lake
IETF meeting. If no suitable proposals are available by that time, a
rechartering may make sense then.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 02:26:47 +0800

Eric,

Rechartering takes a while..we are still thrashing the wordings. If you
have any proposed wording changes, then please provide them. Saying you
"disagree" or "I dont like this" does not help me when I am trying to
tune the changes. It is much easier if you are more explicit.

Personally, I feel that there are a few sentence which I feel should be
dropped or change. See below.

> > In particular, changes

This one should be dropped.

> > permit use of international character, as recommended by the IAB,
and

This is vague cos I dont know what recommendation from IAB Dave is
refering to.

> > In particular software that needs to

This should be drop too.

-James Seng

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:36:45 -0800

>on this list who have expressed a desire for a UTF-8 label encoding?

There is no such plurality. There are a few people and one draft. 
Some of the people who say they support UTF-8 don't support all of 
the draft. And there have been some deep flaws in the draft that have 
been repeatedly pointed out and ignored.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:46:18 -0800 (PST)

I recall some straw polls to see how much support there were for several
of the drafts, as I recal the UTF-8 circle didn't have enough to keep
their drafts on the table.

-rick

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:47:47 -0600

James Seng/Personal wrote:
> 
> Eric,
> 
> Rechartering takes a while..we are still thrashing the wordings.

Could you provide a schedule for changes so that those of us who are still
working on alternatives per your last guidance on this subject know what
our timeframe is?

> dropped or change. See below.

It would be preferable for people to post proposals under their own name.
I'm not sure I see the merit in having a chair echo someone else' changes
without modification or comment.

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:56:00 -0600

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> >How does this realignment conform to the plurality of independent
> >voices on this list who have expressed a desire for a UTF-8 label
> >encoding?
> 

The list archives clearly show a larger number of statements along the
lines of ~"I support UTF-8" than statements of ~"ACE is the one true way"

> been repeatedly pointed out and ignored.

I'm not referring to any particular proposal.

There have been multiple proposals, which have had real and imagined
problems. There are also multiple proposals currently under development
which attempt to address these needs and the concerns. Terminating those
efforts without warning is at odds with the WG consensus as measured by
the above.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:16:11 -0800

>lines of ~"I support UTF-8" than statements of ~"ACE is the one true way"

The IETF does not use volume as a measure.

>I'm not referring to any particular proposal.

that's a large part of the problem.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:47:39 -0800

At 02:26 AM 11/2/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> > > In particular, changes to the DNS infrastructure of storage and 
> exchange mechanisms will be avoided.
>

         Why?

         A key to any feasible near-term transition is that there be no 
change to the existing infrastructure.  That is the essence of the benefit 
offered by an ACE scheme and it is the approach that has developed two 
years' worth of rough consensus.

> > > The technical approach for the current specification effort shall be 
> to permit use of international character, as recommended by the IAB, and
>

         I was being lazy.  The language should be:

         The technical approach for the current specification shall be to 
permit use of ISO-10646 characters, as mandated by the IAB in RFC 2277.

> > > In particular software that needs to be changed is restricted 
> to:  DNS client.  No other modules will need to be changed.
>
>This should be drop too.

         Again I ask why?

         A scheme that depends only upon changing clients is one that 
permits incremental adoption and immediate utility.

         A scheme that requires any other changes to the system is one that 
requires large-scale adoption before it is useful.  This will mean that 
internationalization of the DNS will have no practical utility for many years.

d/

----------

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 16:06:10 -0500

Dave,

The string "mandate" occurs once in rfc2277, at least in my copy ;-)
   
   This document does not mandate a policy on name internationalization,
   but requires that all protocols describe whether names are
   internationalized or US-ASCII.

There is this however,

   All protocols MUST identify, for all character data, which charset is
   in use.

   Protocols MUST be able to use the UTF-8 charset, which consists of
   the ISO 10646 coded character set combined with the UTF-8 character
   encoding scheme, as defined in [10646] Annex R (published in
   Amendment 2), for all text.

Naturally, using LDH in _any_ encoding scheme, including one that just
happens to catch iso10646, meets this test. For that matter, using LDH
to (re)encode EBCDIC would as well.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 16:03:43 -0800

>The string "mandate" occurs once in rfc2277, at least in my copy ;-)

         Even as I typed the word, I knew that it would excite a 
response.  at least I can claim that I did not offer the word as a quotation.

>    the ISO 10646 coded character set

and indeed, the MUST was what I was referring to.

         Of course, the particular language used gives more ammunition to 
those supporting UTF-8.

         However the point behind distinguishing character set from 
encoding involves more elaborate analysis of the IAB document, and careful 
consideration of the transition factors.

\d/

----------

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:39:59 +0800

> working on alternatives per your last guidance on this subject know
what

As long as it takes to reach clear consensus but no more.

Personally, I am looking somewhere in the next 2 week.

-James Seng