Subject: [iucg] confusion about IDNA2008/2010/2012

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:34:48 +0100

Dear colleagues,
this may be of interest to explain why Jean-Michel and I delay the 
debate on [email-masked] and why this debate will be important.
Best
jfc

-----------

Dear all,
there seems to be a consensus among you. I work on that consensus to 
introduce the appeal I promised.

1. This appeal is to raise awareness and obtain responses on two points:
1.1. IDNA2008 is the normative basis IDNA needed. IDNA is fully 
operational on the network side. It is not on the user side. It is 
not as a whole.
1.2. ICANN proceeds clumsily as if IDNA was fully documented. This 
creates an unexpected urgency to address what in addition IDNA2008 
implies for the whole Internet architecture.

2. IRT to the use of ths "IDNA2010" term. Patrik Falström used it in 
Paris, then I used it, then Paul Hoffman used it, the now ccNSO uses it, etc.
2.1. In all the cases we used it as a synonymof a "new IDNA2008" 
version. The only way to stop those IDNA2---- was to give it another 
more logical meaning: the way to implement IDNA2008 on the user side. 
Before particular interests (ICANN, Unicode, China, etc.) could 
appropriate it for a limited scope.
2.2. and to start consistently discussing IDNA2012 to formalise what 
the Mapping document implies: "The current version of IDNA presumes 
that the input to the  protocol comes from a set of "permitted" code 
points, which it then encodes and passes to the DNS, but does not 
specify what to do with the result of user input. This document 
describes the actions that can be taken by an implementation between 
user input .." However, it does not say:
-- how this implementation should be documented, if there exist or 
not common guidances, tools, rules, tables, solutions to similar 
problems, etc. (IDNA2010 BCP)
-- and how the resulting protocol generation process is to be 
standardised (IDNA2012).
Necessarily an interface has two faces and one core. The three of 
them need a consistent documentation.

3. Vint says:
3.1."We are in strong agreement that "what you register is what you 
get" and perhaps even more strongly that the only registered domain 
names should be those with the A-label/U-label duality." Good. This 
is what I call the MultiLayer DNS pile.
3.2. "I agree also that the matter of assuring proper registration 
and ownership lies with the registry." Good. This is why we need an 
ML-DNS pile, because there may be more cases than A/Ulabels in this 
process. And all of them MUST be absolutely and bijectively tied together.

4. as in every innovative process there are three approaches:
4.1. Incremental: this is what this WG has done. In consistently 
supporting diversity it has documented the Internet multiplicity.
4.2. Disruptive: this what the IUCG does in working on the Interplus 
IUI which applies this diversity without changing a single byte in 
the Internet protocols.
4.3. Architectural: this is what we prematurely have to consider 
together if we cannot convince ICANN and IESG that the Mapping 
documents that none of this two approaches is able yet to support 
commercial operations.

At 05:02 08/02/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
>FWIW, I find myself in 100% agreement with Paul on his answers.
>I would add that I'd hope that any additional mapping proposals,
>via the Independent Submission Editor or otherwise, be very
>careful to be consistent with the base IDNA2008 documents and,
>in particular, avoid doing anything that could make a valid
>IDNA2008 U-label inaccessible.

Full agreement. This is why such submissions should belong to a 
framework (IDNA2012) and be based on experience and experimentation 
(IDNA2010) of the IDNA2008 standard.

>On Sunday, February 07, 2010 18:58 -0800 Paul Hoffman 
><[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document" as-is?
> > Yes.

Yes. It is an informational guidance for IDNA2010.

> > 2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about
> > this document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46
> > that advocates substantially more mapping than the present
> > "mappings" document?
>No. This seems to me unlikely to come to even rough WG or IETF
>consensus. Having said that, I would encourage anyone else who
>has a mapping proposal to consider making it an RFC through
>the Independent Submissions Editor.

As said above, I think the WG carried his job. The Mapping document 
is its input in that area.

> > 3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing
> > with the question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s)
> > are offered by the WG members?
> > No. Exhaustion set in months ago.

A new charter could be considered to assist the IDNA2010 job and to 
wrap-up the IDNA2012 consolidation.

At 06:03 08/02/2010, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>And to phrase what John says otherwise, a) keep the 1:1 mapping 
>between A-label and U-label,

Yes. This is not worked on enough. This is simpler and more 
productive if formalized, as an ML-DNS pile, or whatever way you want 
to call it.

>b) ensure all U/A-labels are "usable"

This calls for the IDNA2010 work as documented above. Or whatever 
other way you want to name it. This is the work introduced by the 
Mapping document.

>c) be very careful so that users are not confused on what is an 
>A/U-label and what is not.

Yes. This is why the ML-DNS formalization and a global IDNA2012 
review based upon IDNA2008 and IDNA2010 field experience are necessary.

>On Feb 7, 2010, at 9:04 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>RFC 3439 teach us that there can be only one response to this kind 
>of intricacies: simplicity.The WG has attained simplicity. As a 
>general comment, IDNA is about supporting (linguistic) diversity 
>through a single system (DNS). This cannot be obtained in 
>introducing uniform constraints.

Agree. This begins with the IDNA2008 impact on the Internet global 
architecture. This is out of the scope of the WG, but we all are aware of it.

>IDNA2010 [is to] document how the User/Unicode side is to match the 
>Internet/DNS IDNA2008 side. IDNA2010 should address the Unicode TR46 concerns.

Yes. Also obviously the Latin Majuscules we find worrying to see disregarded.

>This WG has to deal with areas where it can write MUSTs (belonging 
>to the Internet system). It can discuss areas where it can write 
>SHOULDs (belonging to the Internet/User Interface). It can suggest 
>about area where it can only write MIGHTs (Users applications). The 
>Mapping document tells this.

The Mapping document hints at the fundamental change in the Internet 
architecture understanding IDNA 2008 uncovered. IDNA2008 legitimates 
the Interplus as architecturaly consistent. The consequence is what 
you describe : the IETF systemic, peritemic, and exotemic areas of 
responsability.

However, I understand the IESG considers this as "research" (cf. Russ 
Housley's mail). My appeal is precisely for the IESG/IAB/ISOC to 
determine is this is research or urgent.

jfc