At 07:32 03/03/2006, Martin Duerst wrote:
At 09:28 06/03/01, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
>http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10411&slug=INTERNET-POLI
CY-MII-DOMAIN%20NAME-DNS
>http://www.domainesinfo.fr/vie_extensions.php?vde_id=859
>http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/02/28/1610242.shtml
>Please look at the press tonight and tomorrow....
>
>The Chinese Names were with us for a couple of years. But they are
now fully disclosed. The result raise a question. Is the IETF to:
You mix up technology and policy. Technology-wise, the Chinese are not
doing anything else than anybody else (read IDNA/Punycode,...),
plus probably some 8-bit stuff based on GB2312 and maybe even UTF-8
for backwards compatibility with earlier experiments.
Dear Martin,
It would be no use to tell you that you confuse many things. I would
only suggest you to test and understand rather than guessing. The
Chinese set-up is very simple. But it belongs to a standard (every
other global network system) culture which is not (yet?) the IETF culture.
Internationalization of the DNS, or whatever you want to call it,
works just fine (I don't think it's pretty, but that's a separate issue).
As you see this Internationalization is widely spread around the
world and phishing free. We started that debate at the WG-IDNA: the
IDNA is a dead-end (this must not be confused with punycode).
Most browsers already implement it, the rest is being updated.
So anybody who goes to China can get these names resolved there
(unless they are on a VPN or have their DNS servers preconfigured).
You confuse the use of the DNS and its architecture.
There is no need for a new IETF architecture at all, and even less
need for new buzzwords. The Internet is already multilingual;
the majority of Internet users is writing emails in languages other
than English, is reading and writing Web pages in languages other
than English, and so on.
I do not know what you call new buzzwords. Chinese TLDs are in the
top zone (not in the root) for years. Externets are with the
international netwok since 1977 (the name itself is inherited from
Jon Postel) and multilingualism is with us since Babel. They are
however three elements which currently are foreign to the IETF RFCs
(a recent IAB meeting denied interest to the word multilingual while
the rest of the world is making it a priority).
I know next week will be the "internationalization week", concluding
with keynotes which raise interest throughout the world. But this is
not multilingualisation of the network - as you show it yourself (cf.
below). Please note that "internationalisation" is not a wrong thing.
The US and the Chinese externet is internationalised. Multilingual
Internet is that they harmonise together. Confusing
internationalisation and multilingualisation is a layer violation,
here is the error. Obviously some tuning is necessary to the
internationalisation solutions once they are embedded in a global
multilingualisation.
(Speaking in Phillip's terms, the IETF has already defined how
to add a 'j' key to a telephone, and most telephones already
have one, or an equivalent.)
I do not understand what Phillips means?
Is it cryptic for something, an image, a concept? I am lost.
Thank you to explain.
Policy-wise, ICANN has moved extremely slowly on non-ASCII top level
domain names. They lost a lot of time, and they very much have to
speed up. But that's completely independent from architecture and technology.
ICANN did their job. Their IDN list is Two years old. They had an IDN
committee in parallel of the WG-IDNA. The list has 2 mails. The
committee was lost. We discussed that extensively at the WG-IDNA. The
documentation is as confuse as unworkable. Phillip's corporation had
invested a lot of money, time and efforts in this. They had the
customer base, signed a significant number of registrants, and toured
the world to explain and motivate Registrars, ISPs and ccTLDs. They
were not alone. They only met scepticism, distinterest and lack of
registrant renewal.
The problem is in the RFC. Nowhere else.
Also, it's only to a smaller part, if at all, an issue of who "controls"
ICANN. The main problem is that there are too many people at ICANN who
do not understand anything about foreign scripts, and rather than
making sure they get the necessary help, they have just been
paralized so far.
If you genuinely believe this I cannot really comment. I can only
propose you to consider a simple thing: ML.ML domain names are for
local people. Local people communities have trustees named ccTLD
Managers. ICANN is involved in gTLD and does not do well with ccTLDs.
So what ICANN may or may not do about MDNs is of no real interest.
There are now ten times more Chinese DNs in use than they were IDN
registrations. ICANN being paralized was in favor of the IDNA
project. Permitting ccTLDs to develop their own strategy free.
It seems that Stephane Bortzmeyer wants to keep agressing me, but the
work Stephane does at AFNIC for ccTLDs is admirable and of a real
great help to their community. He knows the problem and the needs
very well as being in charge of implementing the French IDNs. For
reasons he could document, there is no French IDN in use (I do not
even know if AFNIC supports them yet?).
As for the three specific Han Ideograph TLDs,
the first (China/.cn equivalent) looks quite reasonable, although
it might have been possible to agree that TLDs in Han ideographs
can be one-letter.
Internationalization! :-)
Internationalisation is when IETF geek knows better than local
people. And will question their sovereign and societal decisions.
Someone told me once, "dont waste time documenting the difference
between internationalization and multilingualisation:
multilingualisation is respectfull humitity".
For the other two, there are two problems:
1) They are to quite some extent language-specific,
which is significantly different from .com and .net
(much more like .company and .network). .com and .net,
although having language-related origins, are codes
used across languages.
Inexact. They root in "Tymcom" (Tymnet Computer) and in "Telenet"
(Dr. Larry Roberts' US national commercial network).
2) It may be the first time that a country is creating/takeing
over a gTLD. While I think that ultimately (and hopefully sooner
rather than later), we need equivalents of gTLDs in other scripts,
and while the question of "who gets to run a gTLD" is probably the
most difficult for ICANN to decide, I don't think that it would be
such a good idea to allocate gTLDs to countries.
Whatever we may think it seems that countries allocate themselves
gTLDs, isn't it?
Please reread this exchange. This is the whole WG-LTRU again. You
want to constrain the world so it fits into your own scheme. I want
to serve the world so the technology supports its development bloom.
With the same result: WSIS turned me right. China turns me right.
Take care.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf