Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050209174249.02ed40b0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:20:46 +0100
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DCE7F53A7680EEA85E07F42@scan.jck.com>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050209033550.031d1090@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002301c50e7e$1691cfd0$220110ac@subbiahlaptop1>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050209124515.02fb20f0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<7DCE7F53A7680EEA85E07F42@scan.jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Does the IETF respond the RFP or not? [was IDN ...]
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 17:22 09/02/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 14:30 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey)
>Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
> > The MINC has understood it and prepared as test-bed.

>These two assertions are simply wrong.   MINC has always
>advocated, or seemed to advocate, "IDNs are the solution" and
>"IDNs no matter what, no waiting" approaches.

Dear John,
sometimes you answer too fast. I noticed this is often when I start saying 
we agree :-)

MINC has never entered into IDN design - as you may recall James Seng was 
the one who (re)presented the concept. They have _accepted_ IDN, after so 
many delayed years they desperately need solutions, any solution which 
works. But they identified IDN as a non turnkey solution. So they issued an 
RFP for a serious test bed proposal. We considered responding it, but were 
too short on resources and already concluding the dot-root effort. Asian 
people with a totally different script than ASCII were obviously better 
suited.

We are in a real world: this to the concerned parties to be empowered with 
the decisions concerning their own usage and to take over. This is what 
Harald said for IPv6, I wish he would have said it for IDN and languages 
too. This is why I ask.

> > 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.
>  And ICANN never requested such experimentation,

Please read ICP-3. A very well made document BTW.
May be the confusion comes from that you only consider IDNs only, when I 
consider the whole DNS issue.

>and especially not experimentation involving alternate roots.

What do you imply be that???

I quoted the experience of the defunct TLDA in a different context: how to 
avoid a TLD/keyword conflicting system proliferation and how to manage the 
pollution (you may recall that the first technical conflict of some 
magnitude has been initiated by ICANN .biz [which preferred ".info" to 
".web" to avoid a too big pollution problem for a test] and that Vint Cerf 
eventually accepted and documented in here the resulting risks).

Please read what ICANN says. They consider that eventually experimentation 
could lead to other solution than a single authoritative root file. We 
confirmed the "single authoritative" had obviously to stay, but the file 
was to be structured into a matrix and worked on the way it can/will work 
respecting the national empowerment, sovereignty and security. The ITU has 
obviously made the same reasoning, however I do not know if they carried an 
equivalent experimentation, what would be interesting.

Anyway, coming DNS is far more complex. And this is a detail in the whole 
picture. It only served us to understand that and how the transition could 
occur in a seamless manner. The question is does the IETF want to address 
the real world's RFP or continue selling what it has in stock? These are 
two options wroth a debate as one may bet the world is wrong and will 
continue the way it works today.

But the calendar asks for the decision to be made now.
jfc













>    john
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf