Subject: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:34:43 +0200

IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol and technology
adaptations in different areas. Several mailing lists are working on such
adaptations. There is a need they know the others' targets and they use the
same terminology with the same meaning.

To that end we have compiled charters and drafts, terminology definitions
and propositions from the different souces involved: IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008,
IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, IANA and Unicode.
The file is http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

At this stage we would like to continue compiling suggestions to add to this
document in order to have a comprehensive consolidation of ideas and terms.
Once inputs are stabilized, I will sort all the terms towards an update of
the IANA terminology file. I hope it could help reaching consensuses more
easily if we speak the same language.

Portzamparc

---

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 01:30:33 +0200

Dear Mr. Klensin,

"we" are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There
are three ways one can do it:

- in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community.
- in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protect
ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our
community.
- in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work with our
outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? Please
read the begining of your mail.

We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that it had
to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual's and
ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefsey will soon
be alone!

Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to work
in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able to
answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way,
also with other open works?

This being said you perfectly know that this

2011/8/19 John C Klensin <[email-masked]>

> without any specific
> attribution or acknowledgment.  Those materials include several
> RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis.

is wrong. Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish,
we try to draft a pertinent mail to you!

> I am an author or major
> contributor on several of those.  Especially since I had asked
> earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in
> other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate,

This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carried.
Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you did not
consider yet.

Portzamparc

BTW I am not French, I am Breton!

---

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 02:21:39 +0200

Hi! John,
This seems to be a pretty odd point of yours!  As if every IETF mail had to
list the copyrights of every text or concept it works on or with.

We only are interested in an adequate and coherent multilinguistic
terminology at the IANA. At the end of the day if you want to publish it
under your name you welcome.

I introduced what I hope will close this: WIKI RFC 3271 with an appropriate
comment.

http://idna2010.org
The text John Klensin refers to is the working wiki page:

 *IDNS Common Glossary <http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary>*

 Marie-France

2011/8/20 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>

> Dear Mr. Klensin,
>
> "we" are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community.
> There are three ways one can do it:
>
> - in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to
> protect ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our
> community.
> We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that it
> had to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual's and
> Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to
> work in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able to
> _______________________________________________
> iucg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
>
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:38:22 -0400

--On Friday, August 19, 2011 20:34 +0200 jean-michel bernier de
portzamparc <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol
> and technology adaptations in different areas. Several mailing
> lists are working on such adaptations. There is a need they
> know the others' targets and they use the same terminology
> with the same meaning.
 
> To that end we have compiled charters and drafts, terminology
> definitions and propositions from the different souces
> involved: IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP,
> UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, IANA and Unicode. The file is
> http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.
>...

I'm sorry, but I've had enough of this.

I hesitate to admit that I have read far enough into that
document to have noticed, lest by doing so I add credibility to
it.  However, I observed that it contains rather large blocks of
text excerpted from other materials without any specific
attribution or acknowledgment.  Those materials include several
RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis.  I am an author or major
contributor on several of those.  Especially since I had asked
earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in
other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, but
incorporate the definitions themselves only by reference, this
appears to be a willful and deliberate violation of copyrights
held by the IETF Trust and of my copyrights.  The published IETF
Trust terms require explicit licenses for this type of reuse of
non-code elements of RFCs; these definitions are not code.
Those rules either apply to I-Ds as well or you need permission
from the I-D authors for non-IETF uses.  I, at least, have not
given that permission.  I believe the material on your web page
also infringes the copyrights of others, but they will have to
speak for themselves.

The Trustees of the IETF Trust and other rights-holders will
need to speak for themselves but, at least for materials in
which I have rights under relevant copyright law, please
consider this a request to take the document down and to do so
immediately.

I also request that you supply addresses for IUCG, IUTF, ALFA,
and for yourself and any other individuals or organizations that
are included by reference in your use of "we" in the statement
"To that end we have compiled..." so that copyright holders who
believe that the document infringes their rights can have legal
documents delivered and served should they so desire.

Thank you.
   John Klensin

p.s. if this note falls into the hands of any attorneys with
appropriate credentials to practice intellectual property law in
France who would be interested in pursuing an action in this
matter for a portion of any proceeds (the balance to go to
charity) should contact me.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:10:42 -0400

Not commenting of the legal stuff,  I have to admit I like the idea of 
the Glossary web site with the consolidation of divest material.  I 
thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that 
probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional, but overall 
for such a divest environment on the Internet, the basic Glossary idea 
was interesting that I found to be informational. I think it will 
gives people, especially for the new, a better sense of the global 
connected nature of the various groups. If anything, there was an 
initial perception of commercial interest, but that didn't seem to be 
the case. But your email was definitely presented that way or at least 
its how I read it for a person who didn't know much about all these 
groups.  Maybe didn't help if that was not the intent.

Anyway, I hope the "legal" stuff can be settled.  It would be a 
resource link for me.

jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com

---

From: "J-F C. Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:31:16 +0200

At 02:10 20/08/2011, Hector Santos wrote:
>I have to admit I like the idea of the Glossary web site with the 
>consolidation of divest material.

Hector,
complexity is often confused with complication which further adds to 
complexity. The most usual complication comes from the use of ill 
located notions irt of their supporting concepts (i.e. absolute 
mental pollution) and the use of the same terms with different 
meanings (relative mental pollution). So, any work, should start in 
adopting a common glossary. This is usually helped by the Charter.

However, the post-IDNA2008 era calls for many people to adapt their 
reading of old protocols and in turn adapt protocols to the resulting 
new possibilities (new meanings for old terms, new terminologies). 
This goes beyond what a Charter can do.

>I thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that 
>probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional,

IUCG is not for professional engineers, but for involved users :-) A 
liaison between two worlds who are somewhat suspicious of the other....

>but overall for such a divest environment on the Internet, the basic 
>Glossary idea was interesting that I found to be informational. I 
>think it will gives people, especially for the new, a better sense 
>of the global connected nature of the various groups.

Right now the list includes 772 definitions. It would be 
extraordinary if there were no conflicts, doublons, needed updates. 
The first part is more complex to summarize. IAB partly engaged in a 
parallel work.

>If anything, there was an initial perception of commercial interest, 
>but that didn't seem to be the case.

I would be interested in knowing why do you get that feeling? IUCG is 
a response to RFC 3869 calls for help: "The IAB believes that it 
would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to 
increase their funding of both basic research and applied research 
relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going 
forward.". It is a place for non-commercial private sponsors to bring 
their experience and possible expertise to contribute to basic and 
more ofter applied research relating to the Internet.

>But your email was definitely presented that way or at least its how 
>I read it for a person who didn't know much about all these 

I use to say "I do not ask my phone to be democratic or legal, I ask 
it to work". We worked out the IDNA2008 consensus by the end of 2010 
and nothing has moved yet on the IETF/IAB side. On the "JEDI"s side 
we have advanced towards prototyping an IUI (Intelligent/Internet Use 
Interface) as a prerequisite for a documentation. However, we also 
see that we are blocked by the IETF's and Unicode's lacks of 
simplicity (RFC 3439). So, we have to start back at the fundamental 
gloassary "simplicity point" for everyone. Moreover than we have to 
be at least pluri-lingual.

At the same time we are hampered by the ISOC's copyrights. Responses 
of IAB to my post-IDNA2008 appeal for clarification, made clear that 
our area (Intelligent Use Interface) is actually outside of the IETF 
scope, but interacts with it. This alllows to explore that area as 
being public domain, but if we want to technically keep in touch (the 
very nature of an interface) we have to interact with the IETF 
copyrighted world. Otherwise we certainly could hack the Internet and 
turn the JEDIs into some Anonymous. We might go faster, but network 
stability would be endangered.

jfc