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

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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf