Subject: Re: [iucg] Bundling of Domain Names and DNAME

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:38:25 +0100

+1

And this is why we just decided to initiate [email-masked] now. 
I wanted to wait for the IESG to have approved the final IDNA2008 
text. But obviously Lisa's position amounts to IESG refusing the IDNA 
concept the WG worked out.

So we need IDNA2010, and we need fast if not to give an unfair 
advantage to Google DNS on the network, the business, the ISP market 
and try to prevent a DNS war with Microsoft which would definitly 
kill any DNS innovation/extension for another 25 years.

In the long term Unicode, Google, ICANN, Microsoft competition for 
IANA control we took the Internet Users side a long ago (the debate 
over RFC 4646). Today, we have a real, validate and  working concept 
which showes we need _none_ of them to navigate the internet more 
safely, more securely, faster and cheaplier. However, I acknowledge 
Vint's move is brillant. It was expected at this very date, but I 
acknowledge it was not expected this way. So, we certainly are still 
really too small. But, on another side, this should help weak to 
strong advertising for  Interplus, because it already works.

jfc

At 14:47 04/12/2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 08:36:50AM -0500, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > Vaggelis,
> >
> > extensions of DNS in the XNAME direction would require creation of a
> > new WG for this purpose.
>
>It wouldn't require a new WG: that's exactly what DNSEXT exists for.
>So I think that's why Vaggelis has sent a note to namedroppers.  It'd
>probably make sense to take that topic over there and leave idnabis
>out of the discussion, since the reason for the extension (mirroring
>part of a tree to do DNS variants) is just one of the possible uses of
>such a mechanism, were it possible to design it safely.  (For the same
>reason, I send this only to the idnabis list, and not to that of
>dnsext.)
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>[email-masked]
>Shinkuro, Inc.
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

---

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:30:57 +0100

At 14:28 04/12/2009, Vaggelis Segredakis wrote:
>Dear Erik,
>
>Actually it does not matter whether the final sigma is PVALID or not,
>although I believe that it will be since both the .gr Registry and .cy
>Registry have asked for it.
>
>We have the same issue with the accent mark "tonos". Almost each word in
>Greek has this accent mark in small letters but if you put it in capital
>letters the mark is omitted, creating two different xn-- Punycode
>translations for each word used as a domain name.
>
>We Bundle domain names already because of this "tonos" and we face this
>bundling issue since 2005 but we had put our hopes on the IDNA revision for
>a better solution. Since this is not possible, we need the XNAME bundling
>regardless of the final sigma in IDNA2008 situation.

Dear Vaggelis,

I suggest that you write a description of the issue (or quote one) so 
we can add it to http://idna2010.org issues to solve. There is most 
probably no real problem in addressing this kind of issue (similar to 
French access ent majuscules) but we have an entropy issue: we have 
to address all this kind of needs in a similar way (cf. RFC 1958) to 
keep it compact. This is the purpose of IDNA2010: to start from now 
perhaps defunct IDNA2008 we worked together, and document a Better 
Usage Document, listing the different possible cases and solutions 
that everyone can use for operational reference.

jfc

>Kind Regards,
>
>Vaggelis Segredakis
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erik van der Poel [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:59 PM
>To: Vaggelis Segredakis
>Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew Sullivan; Olafur Gudmundsson; Vint
>Cerf; Sotiris Panaretou; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Bundling of Domain Names and DNAME
>
>Vaggelis, thank you for raising this issue on the namedroppers list.
>
>Namedroppers, I would like to clarify one item below.
>
>On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Vaggelis Segredakis <[email-masked]>
>wrote:
> > Recently, as a member of the discussion of the IDNABIS WG I tried to help
> > resolving these issues by explaining them to that group. However that
>group
> > is not free to completely re-design the IDNA protocol to something else
>but
> > rather with small steps to reform it to something with fewer issues.
> > Unfortunately, on this process, one of the changes that are implemented
>lead
> > to even more names that have to be bundled together for each registrant.
> > This makes it even more significant to break this chain of cost for the
>end
> > user.
>
>The IDNAbis WG drafts have not been published as RFCs yet. Currently,
>the drafts make Final Sigma (Unicode U+03C2) PVALID, but this issue is
>currently being discussed in the WG.
>
>Erik
>
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:20:35 -0500

What is "Vint's move"?  I assure you that no wg chair wants anything  
more than to get a document out the door and shut down. It's awful  
being a Chair. Everyone sits on you, and some of them have digestive  
problems.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]>

On 2009-12-04, at 14:38, JFC Morfin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> text. But obviously Lisa's position amounts to IESG refusing the  
> IDNA concept the WG worked out.
>

---

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:46:48 +0100

>being a Chair. Everyone sits on you, and some of them have digestive

Sure.

I am not refering to the WG/IDNABIS Chair. I am refering to the 
Google Internet VP and ISOC founder who is in the brillant process of 
trying to take the leadership on the Internet using the same ideas as 
mine's. Mind you, I have no problem with the move because it could 
help stabilizing the DNS far faster. But there are a few people upset 
and anxious all over the world. First time that something happens so 
unexpectedly bluntly in the Internet history, I suppose.

Very very interesting !!!
jfc