Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050317033553.031631d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:16:08 +0100
To: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: stability
Cc: "Martin v. LXwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>,
	Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>,
	idn@ops.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <423876D2.2070809@vanderpoel.org>
References: <421B8484.3070802@vanderpoel.org>
 <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com>
 <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org>
 <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]>
 <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org>
 <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]>
 <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com>
 <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org>
 <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com>
 <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org>
 <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
 <A574CA1BE87BFDA3C2A1AC0E@scan.jck.com>
 <42322CE2.4040509@vanderpoel.org>
 <4232B2FD.1080104@vanderpoel.org>
 <4232BA56.5090001@vanderpoel.org>
 <iluk6odazwb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <00e801c528a8$99ad37d0$72703009@sanjose.ibm.com>
 <ilull8qb5n5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <42367B63.6080300@vanderpoel.org>
 <4237450A.9010901@v.loewis.de>
 <423754F3.50405@vanderpoel.org>
 <ilumzt47ezc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <42375C9E.8040001@v.loewis.de>
 <4237917D.9080507@vanderpoel.org>
 <6.1.2.0.2.20050316125429.04464370@mail.jefsey.com>
 <423876D2.2070809@vanderpoel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

At 19:11 16/03/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>I agree, and I can see why you react in this way to my email, but please 
>look again at Martin's email. If we followed Martin's advice, we would 
>wait quite a long time before even *considering* updates to IDNA. I think 
>it's reasonable to *consider* changes and even to write drafts *before* 
>the registries deploy further constraints.

Dear Erik,
John documented what he sees of the Registries. This is already a mess he 
documents well. What he does not see is that the users are not renewing. 
They are not interested. Except possibly - but their ccTLDs do not talk too 
much of IDNs -  in Latin countries. The issue is easy to understand you 
need two keyboards to enter the IDNs and two languages to spell them on the 
phone - except when the ascii TLD can be typed.

So there is no real need to get excited about IDNA. Phishing was 
interesting. I will write the Draft on that.

>Of course, we must involve the registries in the draft review process.
>
>>The first step is to permit the Registries to operate in this still 
>>debated environement.
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand. The registry operators *are* already 
>permitted to operate their registries.

John described that. Registries understand nothing to the complex signals 
(or lack of) from the ICANN, IETF, market, etc. I am on the WG-IDN of the 
ccTLDs as a lingual organization (Eurolinc). I suppose there is one year I 
received the last mail. 2 mails in one year++ on ICANN IDN list. They even 
told me James Seng does not attend all the ICANN IDN meetings (James?) 
anymore.

James sold us something brillant in MdR2000. But the IETF delivered 
something else.

>>I have asked responses about that and got no answer.
>
>I find it very difficult to respond to your emails because you often bring 
>up topics that I don't understand and seem somewhat unrelated, such as "PAD".

PADs are obviously the core of the problem and a revolution. Handles could 
also be used.
In case you forgot about PAD I documented several times, it stands for 
Private Alias Directory. This is the Directory of the ML keywords or DN you 
can register in your own system to call an external host. This is a Quick 
and Dirty excellent solution when an IP address is available. What will be 
the case with IPv6 and that main sites can obviously already support.

>  Also, some of your emails seem to talk about a revolution, which is very 
> difficult to bring about, and hence unlikely.

There are several revolutions right now. Just look at the network, the 
behaviors and the people. A revolution does not mean an immediate tide. It 
means that something we did one way can be done another way, that it has 
started being used and that it will only grow. IDNA is not a revolution.

>  I have made such proposals myself (e.g. displaying the domain name from 
> left to right instead of right to left), but others have pointed out that 
> such ideas are more in the theoretical realm than the practical one, and 
> so I have stopped talking about them.

This is not a revolution. This is a strange idea :-). Naming was left to 
right first. ARPANET naming was flat and for practical reason became right 
to left. It stayed that way. Your proposal works. Left to right and / 
separators. I understand there are already 15 millions of them. Named handles.

A revolution is that less than 50% of the Internet connections still use 
the DNS, that handles develop, that PADs permits private keywords and 
ultimately billions of roots. And that IAB can issue another document for 
information on the matter or not, the trend is that way and we have to 
organize it or it will be a mess.

>If you want to achieve consensus, you have to come closer to the rest of 
>the group.
>Of course, you may claim that this group is itself far removed from the 
>real world, but I don't see much evidence of that.

This is may be that you should go into the real world :-)  I think that in 
this group I am the only one who happens to be there. This is why I keep 
poping in here, in the hope that some field information can go through and 
some great guy like you, Adam, Simon, Brian, John can give a good idea.

All "the rest of the group" are in IETF or SGs. You know, one think the 
things go slowly. That changes will never happen. And all the sudden one 
discovers that they did happen and we did not saw them. Reality is simple: 
IDNA did not really convinced. Some techies had fun implementing them, some 
Registrars tried to make money in calling and registering TMs and some 
cybersquatters lost some money there.

Just a question: when was that the last time you supported a registrant for 
his server to be accessed with the DN he just registered?
This do help to understand what the people want and do.

jfc