Subject: Does the IETF respond the RFP or not? [was IDN ...]

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:30:05 +0100

John Klensin said:
> > >>p.s. Jefsey, the only relevant WSIS message here is that blindly
> > >>going off and enthusiastically implementing and deploying IDNs
> > >>(or IRIs), without consideration of these issues that have been
> > >>well-understood for years, puts users at risk to the point of
> > >>being irresponsible.  That doesn't imply in any way that IDNs
> > >>are bad, only that one needs to consider the systems of which
> > >>they are a part, do registrations and implementations with
> > >>appropriate safeguards and user education, and that handwaving
> > >>is not a sufficient way to address the issues.  And, again, that
> > >>is very old news -- to the extent that, if the WSIS process and
> > >>contributors don't understand it, it is a problem with their
> > >>processes.

Dear John,
we are in full agreement here. The way I see the things is that we had an 
erroneous approach of the demand for vernacular support, starting with 
domain names, but continuing with IRI, langtags, exchange spaces, address 
deployment, usage architecture, user support, etc.. This results from a 
non-multinational culture of the ISOC/IETF. None of us will change the 
world, and this is why the IETF has to live with a demand it does not fully 
understand (or even accept) and the world with the IETF (unless it blows 
it). But we can contribute in having the IETF accepting the world (hence my 
clumsy efforts to internationalize it, to include some form of market 
study/user validation in its deliverables production process), and in 
having the world - as you say - to understand that the IETF deliverables 
are not turn-key solutions. The MINC has understood it and prepared as 
test-bed. ICANN had understood it and requested an IETF supervised DNS 
experimentation, I think I was alone in carrying, with a few 30 European 
test root servers organized in three root trees (dot-root program), 
respecting and adding to the ICANN test criteria.

In that context we have to try to make our best to permit usage to survive 
and develop in guiding it. IETF "how to's" are the BCPs. They carry some 
real weight (this is why I do not want them to become confusing as the 
proposed RFC 3066bis Draft). All what we can do is to advise on how to 
protect the users against the IDN dangers, and to put this into the 
perspective of the drastic DNS (and network usage architecture) changes we 
start facing (just to stay in the naming issue).

1. a domain name is an IP (mnemonic and portable) alias. Period. This has 
been confused a time with the introduction of the HTTP.1.1 "virtual NAT" 
(the domain name contributes to the routing within the host). This 
confusion has been made "ICANN community correct" with the huge commercial 
mistake of Verisign which did not understand that in keeping the alias line 
they could have sold ten times more Domain Names (ten aliases per web site) 
and open a seamless road towards multilingualism (as they did start doing 
it with James Seng's i-DNs initial effort). But probably M$ IIS limitations 
did not help. Now, with IPv6, DNs can resume their unique alias role, and 
users will be able to call their favorite site with their own decided 
"keywords". I have entered the ICANN site IP in my Hosts.txt file and I use 
to type "nuts" to get to their site. All over the world we will have ML 
hosts.txt maintained alias lists, supported by LDAP servers or daily 
updates. There are 40 millions of DNs, but how many are you using on your 
real life externet (the external resources you are interested in)? May be 
300 a year (look at your favorite menu). Hosts.txt is much faster and 
reliable and easier to maintain with a specialized support - it comes with 
built-in parental protection and anti-banners firewalling. Question: how 
are you going to maintain some kind of order into this, IRI wise, IPR wise?

2. the directory applications (there are the DNS, Handles, the RFID, the 
OID, etc. etc.) need to have some stability and references. The DNS 
governance (what the WSIS confuses in part with an "Internet Governance") 
needs some more serious management than what IDN permits.

- Internationalization is a first step (and I continue to say that a DN 
should depend, from TLD to nLD, on a unique lang5tag, every possible 
special case being permitted but flagged - there is not only homograph 
problems, but also typos, signaling, etc. that are not supported). 
[lang5tag are the ISO related lang3tag proposed by the "RFC 3066bis" Draft 
made flexible and operational in adding a style (default: IDN table) and 
the authoritative source of the associated rules, dictionary, etc. (default 
ccTLD Manager)]

- But multilingualization should have been supported - that is the real 
language support and its constraints. A lot of work should have been 
achieved on virtual DNS zones to permit lingual [or others] co-registries, 
related to a lang5tag for example.

- Vernacularization (the real users' [human and telemated services] needs 
support) is much more complex: I think it can be supported by the DNS and 
some extra tools like access engines (access decision upon a fuzzy name).

All this, the adaptation of the existing solutions and the development of a 
new vision can be carried by the IETF, or elsewhere. The IETF to say, and 
to say _now_ as the WGIG conclusion will most probably create a momentum in 
favor of IETF or not. The inability of ICANN (read their strategic plan) to 
even perceive this demand probably means their inability to support it. 
This means that the IETF is also to find a new way to organize the naming 
intergovernance and make it work. Many conflicting entities are going to be 
freely involved: the alt root experience should have helped). Solutions are 
to be found, quick, in order to prevent the mess (naming can become worse 
than spam).

At least we should start in stopping mistakes. The RFC 3490 limitations 
over TLDs, the IRI lack of clear support of "ML.ML" names, the "lang3tag" 
confusion over what the IANA is (not an ISO repository but an Internet 
protocol parameter clearing house). Then we should word a clear demand of 
guidance to the IAB over the Multilingual Internet the world wait for, and 
drastic architectural changes, starting with the distribution of the IANA 
function, rather than its survival protection control by ICANN.

Figures may help to understand the WSIS problem and the lacks of adequation 
of the current support of its IAB/IETF main technology provider. There are 
may be today 850.000.000 of Internet non permanent web watchers and spam 
sufferers using an end to end architecture, with may be 50.000.000 DNs and 
97.5% of illegitimate DNS root calls. We are looking how to support within 
20 years (or far less in terms of options and capacity) an extended 
services, broad bandwidth continuity and interpersonal brain to brains 
(cpu2cpu) ubiquitous and 24/365 space of secure, reliable, fast privacy 
protected multiexchanges involving 20.000.000.000 stations, 7.000.000.000 
users, probably one or two terra names and more numbers and RFIDs, using 
7620 languages (ISO last current count), 20.000 dialects (last non-ISO very 
very reduced count), for 42650 business areas (last UN count) most 
proximity services networks, in full respect of national, business, 
personal privacy, empowerment and sovereignty and support of States 
regalian services, at a cost and an intergovernance complexity the world 
can foot.

Question is: does the IETF respond the RFP or not?
jfc

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:22:32 -0500

--On Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 14:30 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> The MINC has understood it and prepared as test-bed. ICANN had
> understood it and requested an IETF supervised DNS
> experimentation,  I think I was alone in carrying, with a few
30
> European test root servers organized in three root trees
> (dot-root program), respecting and adding to the ICANN test
> criteria.

These two assertions are simply wrong.   MINC has always
advocated, or seemed to advocate, "IDNs are the solution" and
"IDNs no matter what, no waiting" approaches.  And ICANN never
requested such experimentation, and especially not
experimentation involving alternate roots.

   john

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:20:46 +0100

At 17:22 09/02/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
> > The MINC has understood it and prepared as test-bed.

>"IDNs no matter what, no waiting" approaches.

Dear John,
sometimes you answer too fast. I noticed this is often when I start saying 
we agree :-)

MINC has never entered into IDN design - as you may recall James Seng was 
the one who (re)presented the concept. They have _accepted_ IDN, after so 
many delayed years they desperately need solutions, any solution which 
works. But they identified IDN as a non turnkey solution. So they issued an 
RFP for a serious test bed proposal. We considered responding it, but were 
too short on resources and already concluding the dot-root effort. Asian 
people with a totally different script than ASCII were obviously better 
suited.

We are in a real world: this to the concerned parties to be empowered with 
the decisions concerning their own usage and to take over. This is what 
Harald said for IPv6, I wish he would have said it for IDN and languages 
too. This is why I ask.

> > ICANN had
>  And ICANN never requested such experimentation,

Please read ICP-3. A very well made document BTW.
May be the confusion comes from that you only consider IDNs only, when I 
consider the whole DNS issue.

>and especially not experimentation involving alternate roots.

What do you imply be that???

I quoted the experience of the defunct TLDA in a different context: how to 
avoid a TLD/keyword conflicting system proliferation and how to manage the 
pollution (you may recall that the first technical conflict of some 
magnitude has been initiated by ICANN .biz [which preferred ".info" to 
".web" to avoid a too big pollution problem for a test] and that Vint Cerf 
eventually accepted and documented in here the resulting risks).

Please read what ICANN says. They consider that eventually experimentation 
could lead to other solution than a single authoritative root file. We 
confirmed the "single authoritative" had obviously to stay, but the file 
was to be structured into a matrix and worked on the way it can/will work 
respecting the national empowerment, sovereignty and security. The ITU has 
obviously made the same reasoning, however I do not know if they carried an 
equivalent experimentation, what would be interesting.

Anyway, coming DNS is far more complex. And this is a detail in the whole 
picture. It only served us to understand that and how the transition could 
occur in a seamless manner. The question is does the IETF want to address 
the real world's RFP or continue selling what it has in stock? These are 
two options wroth a debate as one may bet the world is wrong and will 
continue the way it works today.

But the calendar asks for the decision to be made now.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:24:41 -0500

Jefsey, you paint an interesting picture of an alternate universe.  As
part of painting that picture, you do describe some properties our
users would like to have.

However these are not the only priorities.  I don't think you discuss
anything new; I think the goals you considered were also considered
during IDN discussions, addressing discussions, etc.

However there were other goals like security, simplicity,
deployability that conflict with your goals.

We came to various consensuses that balanced these conflicting goals.

I recommend that you spend some time trying to understand these
conflicts and why particular decisions were made.

At least to the extent that I understand your goals, I don't think the
decisions stem from a lack of understanding of internationalization,
globalization, localization or multi-lingualism.  As best I can tell,
people understood the issues involved and made reasonable tradeoffs.
These may not be the tradeoffs you want.  The weighting of various
goals may even be somewhat wrong, but for the most part I don't think
the decisions stem from a lack of understanding of the issues.

--Sam