Subject: Re: [idn] Determining equivalence in Unicode DNS names

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:01:25 -0800

>In other words, the task of IDN is entirely solvable, 
>as long as we do not define the task to be too broad.

I can see how my statement could be misinterpreted, so please allow me to 
clarify.

I did not mean to say that IDN cannot succeed. I'm quite sure that IDN 
can and will succeed.

What I meant to say is not solvable, is the task of defining a single set 
of Unicode equivalence rules that is appropriate in every culture in 
every country around the world. It may simply be the case that under UK 
trademark law the names Pépsi and Pepsi are deemed to be same, while 
under French trademark law they are deemed to be quite different. (That 
may be a terrible example; if so I apologize, and welcome a better 
example of a case where different cultures have different rules of name 
equivalence.)

Hence my question was whether DNAME might provide an answer, to free IDN 
from the equivalence debate, by allowing equivalence to be determined 
locally on a per-zone basis.

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:19:44 -0800

At 04:01 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>every country around the world.

Ahh, yes.  Thank you.

And indeed that is one of the reasons such a task is outside the scope of 
this working group.

>locally on a per-zone basis.

IDN, as a technical effort, ALREADY is free of the debate.

However it is easy to think otherwise:  The fact that some people persist 
in conducting the debate on this mailing list is merely due to their 
intense interest in the topic and their misunderstanding the scope of this 
group.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:59:57 +0800

Stuart,

Since you just join the list, you may want to take a look at our website
and the mailing list archives at http://www.i-d-n.net/

The points you raised (and it is valid) have been discussed before which
is partially answered in Nameprep. It is one dead horse we need not whip
again.

The use of DNAME as a solution was also discussed before. It is a
solution that is neither accepted nor rejected by the WG.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Cheshire" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Determining equivalence in Unicode DNS names

>as long as we do not define the task to be too broad.

I can see how my statement could be misinterpreted, so please allow me
to
clarify.

What I meant to say is not solvable, is the task of defining a single
set

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:17:39 +0800

btw, personally, I think the use of DNAME is a reasonable solution for
cases which Nameprep cant handle , e.g. language dependent (Nameprep
handles scripts only) etc

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
To: "Stuart Cheshire" <[email-masked]>; "Dave Crocker"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Determining equivalence in Unicode DNS names

---

From: "Soobok Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:44:55 +0900

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Cheshire"
> locally on a per-zone basis.

Applications often try to match labels without making any queries on
authoritative DNS servers. eg) certificate verifications.

ie. Registry-defined equivalence in such a way cannot be reflected in
applications' own comparisons of iDN labels. That would cause confusions.

However, directory/search approaches including your DNAME proposal are worth
to consider. My personal preferrence is : ".tld" as keywords/handles
in directory/search engines operated by TLD registries which can
employ their own equivalence rules and provide with advanced features
like fuzzy matches and ambiguity resolutions and more interactivity.

In coming IRNSS WG, I wish we could talk more about directory approaches
that will compete with or replace or obsolete IDN.

Soobok Lee

---

From: "Soobok Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:32:05 +0900

self-comment:

----- Original Message -----

From: Soobok Lee

To: Stuart Cheshire ; Dave Crocker

Cc: [email-masked]

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:44
PM

Subject: Re: [idn] Determining equivalence
in Unicode DNS names

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Cheshire"

** moreover, some folks are considering
localization ([vendor+TLD]-specific preprocessing)

and multiple registrations as a compensation
for incomplete stringprep equivalence rules. But such tricks

would also cause similar confusions and
therefore would hurt uniform interpretation of  IDN identifiers

across different  user
environments/applications,  as  was warned by RFC2825 (A
tangled web).

Soobok Lee

to consider. My personal preferrence is : "<ML>.tld" as keywords/handles

Soobok Lee

---

From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:42:54 +0800

Hi Soobok Lee:
       Right !  Registry-defined equivalence will not do much help to TAG Domain Name in content of web page and mail .  The Localized Equivalence of shared CJK UNICODE may  produce more troubles in gTLD IDN. 

L.M.Tseng
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Soobok Lee 
    To: Stuart Cheshire ; Dave Crocker 
    Cc: [email-masked] 
    Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:44 PM
    Subject: Re: [idn] Determining equivalence in Unicode DNS names

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart Cheshire" 

ie. Registry-defined equivalence in such a way cannot be reflected in 
applications' own comparisons of iDN labels. That would cause confusions.
  ** moreover, some folks are considering localization ([vendor+TLD]-specific preprocessing)
  and multiple registrations as a compensation  for incomplete stringprep equivalence rules. But such tricks 
  would also cause similar confusions and therefore would hurt uniform interpretation of  IDN identifiers  
  across different  user environments/applications,  as  was warned by RFC2825 (A tangled web).

  Soobok Lee

Soobok Lee