Subject: Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration

From: Erin Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:55:53 -0800

[Note: header field too long; To & Cc have been snapped - JS]

Dear Dave Crocker,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:27 PM 2/1/2002 +0800, Erin Chen wrote:
>
>> But, the architecture of IDN defined in above four documents does not
>> solve the traditional and simplified Chinese character variant
problem.
>
>
> There are many things the IDN specifications do not do. Rather, the
> specifications focus on solving satisfying only the requirement they
> are supposed to satisfy.

Do you mean the IDN-REQUIREMENT? It is no longer go with the goal of IDN
WG and will
be dropped. And we has submit a Requirements of Chinese Domain Name
draft.

> Solution of TC/SC is one example of equivalence among Unicode sets.
> Indeed, IDN does not attempt to specify such equivalences. Equivalence
> among separate Unicode sets is essentially an open technical topic for
> which there are no accepted practises.
>
> Still, this topic has been discussed, debated and explained
> extensively within the IDN working group.

I understand the IDN WG has discussed for a long time. But if the
Unicode sets is still not well
defined as you said. Why IDN refer to a unwell defined Unicode sets?
If TC/SC equivalence could not be adopt by IDN, once IDN become standard
the serious
expected delegation problem will occur. That means the user could not
get the consistent
resolving by DNS. DNS become untrust.

> The purpose of IDN is to permit use of an increased range of
> characters in domain name, beyond the current limit of ASCII. It is
> not the goal of the working group to invent character set conventions
> such as equivalence between different sets.

I suggest we have to measure if we omit some requirement such as
equivalence between some
variants like TC/SC, then what kind of serious problem would be caused.
And to review the
original goal of IDN you expressed is still proper or not.

> It will be wonderful when equivalence between sets is achieved.
> However it is not the charter of IDN to solve basic issues of
> character set equivalence and it is not reasonable to delay the
> utility of the character set enhancement specified by IDN, in the hope
> that some day the question of character set equivalence is achieved.

We made the CDNC declaration is not intend to hinder the progress of
IDN. If the IDN
still could not consider or find a proper solution for CDN requirement,
we rather the IDN
switch off CDN temperarily till the proper solution comes out to prevent
the expected
serious problem occur.

> Contrary to the claim that the working group is moving too quickly, my
> own guess is that it has been a major source of delay for the working
> group for at least 6 months. Perhaps much longer.
>
> d/

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

Erin Chen

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:43:23 -0800

[Note: header field too long; To & Cc field have been snapped - JS]

At 06:29 AM 2/5/2002 +0800, Erin Chen wrote:
>WG and will be dropped. And we has submit a Requirements of Chinese
Domain
>Name draft.

no.  I mean that it is only the goal of the IDN working group to extend
the
range of characters valid for domain names.  It is NOT the goal of the
working group to solve language problems.  TC/SC is a language problem.

>defined as you said. Why IDN refer to a unwell defined Unicode sets?

1.  If you wish to repair the Unicode definition, then the proper venue
for
discussions in the Unicode forum.  At any rate, the IETF is clearly not
the
venue for trying to make modifications to Unicode.

2.  Unicode was chosen  by the working group because it is the best
available specification for the working group's goal.  The choice was
considered extensively quite some time ago.  I hope that you are not
asking
the question because you are unaware of that history.

>the serious expected delegation problem will occur. That means the user
>could not
>get the consistent resolving by DNS. DNS become untrust.

You are making a technical assessment about the DNS.  Your assessment is
that it will provide inconsistent resolution of references.

Your assessment is quite simply wrong.  The IDN effort will not alter
the
stability or correctness of DNS resolutions at all.

>equivalence between some variants like TC/SC, then what kind of serious
>problem would be caused. And to review the original goal of IDN you
>expressed is still proper or not.

Yes, it is clear that that is what some of you wish.  However it is
equally
clear that a) there is no ready technical solution to the problem you
seek
to solve, and b) the problem you are trying to solve is beyond the scope
of
this working group.

To repeat:  It will be good and useful to solve the problem of character
set equivalences.  However that problem is not part of the scope for
this
working group.

>IDN.

When someone responds to an IETF working group Last Call with a claim
that
a specification is deficient, the clear and primary goal of that
response
is to delay the issuance of that specification.

IETF participants who are primarily interested in making progress pursue
that interest by creating and promosting viable specifications and
gaining
support for those specifications.  You are encouraged to follow that
path,
rather than to pursue delay of the current specification.

>  If the IDN still could not consider or find a proper solution for CDN
> requirement,
>we rather the IDN switch off CDN temperarily till the proper solution
>comes out to prevent
>the expectedserious problem occur.

The suggestion that use of a particular subset of Unicode be temporarily
restricted suggests a failure to understand basic issues of Internet
protocol design.  Such special case handling is not viable in the scale
of
global Internet community.

d/

----------

---

From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:09:50 +0800

Dear Dave Crocker:
                  My  friend give me an example about  CJK UNICODE ,  It is
so ambiguous to me to deifferentiate which  one is a correct Chinese
characters or  not ?  In  our  hand writting , each pair are used and mixed
.

淸眞敎 U+6DF8 U+771E U+654E
淸眞教 U+6DF8 U+771E U+6559
淸真敎 U+6DF8 U+771F U+654E
淸真教 U+6DF8 U+771F U+6559
清眞敎 U+6E05 U+771E U+654E
清眞教 U+6E05 U+771E U+6559
清真敎 U+6E05 U+771F U+654E
清真教 U+6E05 U+771F U+6559

L.M.Tseng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Erin Chen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IESG" <[email-masked]>; "IAB" <[email-masked]>; "IETF IDN WG"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration