I-D Action:draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-00.txt

Wed Jul 1 16:07:51 CEST 2009

Dear Mr. Cerf,
I am afraid you have a total misreading of our position!!!

Our "direction" works in test for years on and outside the Internet - anyone
can develop it in Perl in a couple of hours. It is based upon a total
neutrality of the Internet and of the DNS. What we oppose in what you
consider is precisely that you disrpect the Charter and  redesign the
Internet and IDNA. You want to introduce at protocol level (i.e. within the
Internet pile) new constraints that break the Internet technical neutrality
in some cases.

We do not really mind because these cases are very limited (at least for the
time being, but we realise that your appraoch may lead to various attempt to
control the Internet)  However, in putting mapping at the Internet
(controlled) level for things that will be important for some users, you
create deployment issues and you make them lose interoperability with the
rest of usage.

We document the Internet the way it actually is, including IDNA, active
content, presentation, DNS, etc.. This is because we need to be sure it can
support the Intersem (semantic, semiotic, multiclultural, etc.) stratum we
are interested in. This includes the use of the presentation and session
control layer.

Jean-Michel A. Bernier de Portzamparc

2009/7/1 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>

> Jean-michel,
> I consider this discussion to be outside the scope of the working group. In
> my opinion, the IDNA architecture has already been decided, based on the
> constraints of the DNS itself. The direction you and others associated with
> Jefsey want to pursue leads toward a re-design of DNS itself. I am not
> arguing against a serious consideration of such a thing, only that I don't
> consider it appropriate for the IDNABIS discussion.
>
>
> vint
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 8:44 AM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Cerf,
> may be could you set-up this mailing list yourself as part of the WG? The
> reason why is that this is not a theorical but an architectural discussion.
> As Elisabeth documents it, it will decide of the IDNA architecture. The
> worst situation would be that a discussion list you called for as a Chair,
> would conflict with this WG.
>
> Best
> Jean-Michel A. Bernier de Portzamparc
>
> Folks,
>> this discussion is not going to get us closer to agreement on the
>> remaining task: selection of the set of characters that should undergo some
>> kind of mapping prior to lookup in the DNS.
>>
>> Could I suggest that parties interested in this theoretical discussion
>> move it to a private distribution list while the WG focuses on finalizing
>> the mapping choices?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
>>
>> I understand this. But I am refering to entropy as "a loss of
>> information", as per Shannon and John. Now, I am not a mathematician here: I
>> am a semantician. This because we precisely reach here (and this is the
>> entire problem) the limits of mathematics. If we could quantify the entropy
>> we could restore the initial information in restoring the corresponding
>> negentropy.
>>
>> The problem we face is that mapping introduce a non quantifiable entropy.
>> We definitly enter mathematical chaos field through the entropic succession
>> which chains possible semantic misunderstandings.
>>
>> Varela (knowledge), Thom (mathematics), Cullioli (linguistics), Morin
>> (complex thinking), Von Bertalanffy (systems) etc. identify linguistics,
>> semantics and pragmatics as the most complex knowlege field. Here we play
>> with hortotypography with an impact on semantic within different contexts.
>> For those not familiar with chaos and catastrophy theories or complex
>> thinking this is like the Lorentz's butterfly in Tokyo. You change a
>> majuscule into a minuscule (French orthotypography) or an upper case into a
>> lower case (English orthotypography) and you do not the global impact (it
>> can be nill, most probably it will change the world, cf. Chaitin and co.).
>> This is exactly the same as any other phishing: to make someone trust what
>> he should not.
>>
>> Elisabeth Blanconil
>>
>> 2009/7/1 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>>
>>> Any phrasing is possible. Some mean less than others. One of my
>>> co-workers was tempted to use "entropy" in a policy document recently. I
>>> prefer not to use the word unless the "entropy" asserted to exist can be
>>> stated as a mathematical formula. If you could make that attempt, it would
>>> be helpful. Users deserve statements that purport to "explain" which are
>>> factually correct.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/6/30 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp <mailto:
>>>> duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    A case mapping is also a 'loss of information', but one that
>>>>    people clearly want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could we not phrase this differently ? Case mapping may be considered
>>>> only if it does not represent a loss of information. Otherwise should we not
>>>> name it "case and entropy mapping" to explain users where entropy occurs.
>>>>
>>>> Elisabeth Blanconil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090701/f3c1bcf8/attachment.htm 