Subject: Re: [iucg] [happiana] draft

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:15:39 +0100

At 05:04 13/03/2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>One of the issues that I don't talk about here (yet) is variance 
>between processes; if each process is slightly (or greatly) 
>different, it's harder for people to apply whatever knowledge they get.
>In other words, while it may be gratifying for us as document 
>authors to come up with convoluted, "perfect" processes that are 
>"just right" for our situation, I suspect we're not doing the people 
>who actually use the registries any favours...

> > [[Flesh out some.  IANA: Is this a practical proposition?  I'm 
> anticipating that something like a wiki or linked blog might be 
> used for this.  E.g. if each entry in a registry is a blog post 
> with its own comments stream?]]
>I agree, but wasn't sure whether this draft was an appropriate 
>place; i.e., is this a consideration when establishing a registry, 
>or is it an IANA operational consideration?

At 09:18 13/03/2012, Graham Klyne wrote:
>Agreed.  Maybe having a small set of examples or patterns to follow 
>might reduce spurious diversity?

>In suggesting this, I was thinking of allowing some of the benefits 
>of the wiki-as-registry model to apply.

I feel these two points: "variant between processes" (and the 
importance of the difference), and "wiki-as-registry" are of the 
essence when considering technology use (vs. protocol definition). If 
I refer to IDNA2008, it introduced a non-defined fringe to fringe 
process (production of the A-labels) as a being end to end trustable. 
RFC 5895 says that this is "unusual". I deduce from this the 
acceptance of the principle of subsidiarity in the Internet 
architecture to externally (and powerfully) support the missing 
presentation layer.

Even, if this is not the case: documentation of U-label mapping and 
variances has to be done somewhere if it is to work and we are to 
trust it. ICANN/VIP discusses that issue and is quite unclear about 
its need and how and with who to do that. Through the saga of the RFC 
4646 I learned the size of the linguistic tables, its possible 
political use, and I opposed the lack of any DDDS solution for their 
synchronization with billions of end-users. This made them a 
permanent DoS on the Internet.

On the Internet use side (IUCG) we wish to support and document this. 
However, the size, synchronization, multilinguization (description of 
all the languages), polylinguization (in all the languages), for each 
Presentation and DNS CLASS, plus the explanation of how to handle the 
natural variance of the support, that Mark notes, of the Variants (as 
per the ICANN understanding - no pun intended) makes a huge opendata 
system and maintenance task we will have to partly assist with 
automation, that we cannot multiply with documentation and examples 
links. Just too big if centralized.

The wiki-as-registry model in a cloud of ressources from DNS 
Registries, would be a very attractive model. It would be interesting 
if we could make it converge with IANA and DDDS and support its 
access in different serialization formats. I was thinking of an IDv6 
(identified interface ID) addressable wiki-as-registry-cell-server 
accessible through a lang-tag-like based domain name with a DNS local 
sub-nameserver. The whole issue would be metadata polynym formating 
(polynym: cross-language "strict" synonyms, considering the variance 
between processes noted by Mark, within the limits of process 
differences, cf. Jon Postel Principle of Robustness and RFC 3439 
Principle of Simplicity).

I would be interested by your comments/suggestions.

jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:12:18 +0100

At 06:13 22/03/2012, Larry Masinter wrote:
>An important function of a registry is its persistence guarantee... 
>that over time, registered values won't get forgotten, and the 
>update policy where registered values can evolve.
>That is, every registry carries a policy of how updates are made, 
>based on the requirements of the contexts in which registered values are used.
>The purpose of any "process" around registration management is to 
>insure that policies are followed, without adding unneeded overhead.

Larry,

convergence on the registry issue is necessary in the Internet 
environment, it is mandatory in the Internet+ framework I work on 
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-internet-plus-09.txt) and of the 
essence for the Intersem (semiotic Internet) facilitation auxilliary 
intelligence tools for intercomprehension which is the ultimate target.

The JTC1/SG32/WG2 work is a central source of ideas but this complex 
work should be "internetized". I perused your two texts. They offer 
an interesting point of view and a framework to work on a convergence 
between the IETF end to end, the IUCG/IUTF 
(http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-iutf-tasks-01.txt) fringe to 
fringe, and W3C web to web strata.

The emerging IUse community (http://iucg.org/wiki/IUse_community) 
works in informally using wikis (http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW) and mails 
([email-masked] non-WG mailing list of which I am the facilitator). 
Since your texts are editor's property and not covered by IETF 
copyrights, I would need your authorization to use them for an IUse 
Wiki Work (IUWW) you will get the outputs or access.

Thank you.
jfc