Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050212235222.04d7e1b0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:09:34 +0100
To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: (ieft) IDN security violation? Please comment
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

Part of a mail send on the IETF list and copied to the 
ietf-languages@alvestrand.no list that RFC 3066 defines as the mailing list 
where IANA language tags are to be reviewed for proposition of registration 
to the IANA by Mr. Michael Everson (designated by the IESG). Address for 
joining the list or consulting its archives 
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages .

-----

May be some analysis to structure the debate. Lingual digital relations are 
supported through three layers: (1) computer interoperability, (2) human 
interintelligibility, (3) human interface.

- at layer 2 relations are brain to brain and support interintelligibility 
in using written languages. The scripts of these languages are supported 
through the Unicode system and are to be tagged for computer recognition.
- at layer  1 relations are end to end and support interoperability in 
using protocols with various digital, hexa, 7 or 8 bits coding and 
parameter systems registered with the IANA.

One of these protocol is the DNS which uses a "-.0Z" numbering plan within 
the 7 bits area, simplifying its human utilization by reference to Arab 0-9 
universally used characters and internationally used Roman A-Z characters. 
This also permits an easy bridging with other plans restricted to 0-9, O-B, 
or 0-F and the direct support of telephone numeric names. It has a direct 
total or partial mnemonic capacity for persons having English, Latin or 
Latin scripted languages.

Internationalization, at end to end layer, permits (punycode in the DNS 
case, not defined in the email LHS) to support a multilingualization at 
brain to brain layer and to provide the same mnemonic capacity to people 
having other languages. Vernacularization is the process which permits 
human interfaces and applications processes to fully take advantage of 
multilingualization, in usage cases ranging from language menus or combos 
to full IRI support.

A common problem is to overlook the multilingualization layer because it is 
transparent in English (an ASCII string is not affected by punycode). This 
layer violation creates the discussed security violation. This layer 
violation is the Verisign's disrespect of the ICANN requirements (at 
multilingualization layer) requiring the registration of IDNs using codes 
from a single language Table.

This common overlook of the multilingualization layer is aggravated by the 
proposition of a unique internationalization layer langtag (independent 
from IDN language Tables) where it does not belong: to describe all the 
vernacular views of a language.

IMHO, a correct generalized approach of multilingualism in the Internet 
consists in structurally acknowledging the three layers permitting to 
clearly tell the users in which exact context they are. This should be 
based upon a five constructors language tag (lang5tag):

- three internationalization layer descriptors.  They are used to register 
the IDN Tables: the language, the script and the domain of use. The RFC 
3066 define the use of ISO 639 codes for the language. RFC 3066bis proposes 
to use the codes of ISO 3166 for national domains and ISO 15924 for the 
scripts. This is a basic correct proposition, there are more general and 
more precise sources if needed.

- a multilingualization layer descriptor: the authoritative reference for 
the considered view of the language.

- a vernacularization layer descriptor: the style, that is the environment 
of the considered application (protocol, administrative, familial, formal, 
commercial, SMS, adult, etc.)

This lang5tag should be part of the IRI description, and supported by an 
icon to be shown in the browser bar. An example: if you send a mail your 
boss secretary will print and present in his daily folder, you may want him 
to know you sent it from a Chinese mobile instead of from your English text 
processor. An ISO 7000 conformant glyph system can probably be designed.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages