local mappings

[JFC Morfin]

At 21:12 28/01/2009, Mark Davis wrote:
>But mappings like lowercase, fullwidth, etc are different.

Unless we make it completely clear that IDNA2008 is a temporary 
Internet Degraded Name Arbitration that temporarily blocks mapping 
for security reasons during the transition to a DNS.2, which will 
fully support every typography. As users, we certainly oppose this 
entirely, but we also have to be pragmatic. If these degraded names 
are what our WG can propose in the present DNS context, a sound, 
reduced proposition is better than a flawed solution.

At this stage, IMHO we should only target what Occam and the IETF LC 
may agree on. I would like to explain something to you further.


  At this time the French Gov has issued an RFP for the replacement 
of AFNIC as the ".fr" Manager. france at large will answer that RFP. As 
part of the procedure, candidates can pose clarification questions 
that the Government will in turn have to answer. IDNA20008 should 
have been completed by now. Therefore, we (should have asked 
questions concerning "Internationalization" within the IDNA2008 framework.

IDNA2008 is not completed yet. Therefore, our own IDNA interoperable 
architecture perspective could also not have been finalized. We are, 
therefore, going to pose our questions with rather little IETF, IAB, 
or architectural background about the "Intersem" (Multilingual and 
Semantic Internet" related issues. These questions will come from 
French users, consumers, corporations, organizations, representatives, etc..
By way of consequence, Government responses (or lack of) will affect 
the whole francophonie and create a de facto international position, 
since ".fr" refrained in the past from developing a solely 
Anglo-Saxon typography, which the Government would like to see come to an end.

Stephane Bortzmeyer from AFNIC did a good job here. He pointed out 
some of the problems that we are facing, but showed reasonably low 
pressure so as to not delay the respective problem solving (the 
solutions to the discussed mapping cases are good hints for some of 
our problems). Furthermore, we (users) cooperated in not objecting to 
what we consider as a clear disrespecting of the Charter and of the 
responsibility, competence (RFC 3935), and precautionary (cf. my own 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt) 
principle. This was because we fully realized that IDNA cannot, and 
does not intent to, bring much more than IDNA2003. and not what we 
consider everyone expect (cf. WSIS, IGF, UNESCO, etc positions). 
James Seng and the Chair have been very honnest about it.

However, the time has come. AFNIC has not been able to deploy the 
proper support needed for the French typography as of yet, this being 
the present case 31 years after the French international 
datacommunications services were opened. Therefore, I presume that 
the questions that I will have to list along with the responses that 
I will thereby obtain (either directly or indirectly) will be 
politically based upon the (1) best QoS for the users (2) 
precautionary principle in a global context (3) imaginative 
architectural alternatives (4) support of the Semantic Addressing, in 
which we were delaying our proposition in order to be certain that it 
will be IDNA interoperable.

One question set will necessarily concern the kind of international 
consensus that will support the French Gov responses that we will 
publicly receive.

Every suggestion that you could make would be _very_ welcome. The 
deadline for us is February 7.
Concerning interoperability, I will certainly quote, in appendix to 
my questions, this present mail, along with whatever response and 
Chair statement that I receive. Obviously the RFP, my questions, and 
the responses received will all be in the French language.

jfc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090129/ff6cd444/attachment.htm