is IDNA the ML-DNS we wait for ?
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat May 17 15:39:30 CEST 2008
At 04:50 17/05/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 03:29:31AM +0200, jefsey wrote:
> > If the IETF cannot match the world's expectations in that area it must say
> > so now, so others can consider alternative solutions before we see
> > different uncoordinated local solutions developed and deployed.
>I'm not entirely sure anyone knows what the world's expectations are
>-- I have, personally, a hard time predicting the mood of my current
>riding's electorate from month to month -- but supposing you had a
>good handle on what the world's expectations are, why would it be
>necessarily harmful if a multitude of possible answers emerged before
>one final one did? (I have my own list for why, note; I'm asking you
I do not want to discuss the cons and pros of IDNA. This was
discussed before. This WG is committed to IDNA. And IDNA has and will
keep deploying. My concern is that if IDNA is not to deliver the
functionnality the world expect (robust transparency to languages)
there will be several local non-coordinated deployments most probably
confirmed after the Olympic Games.
> > The world expects a Multilingual DNS that works for every language and
> > every script the way the DNS works for English and ASCII. Let us call this
> > the ML-DNS specification. It is very simple, terse, and clear.
>Actually, I think we need some parsing marks to be clear: the desire
>is "internationalised LDH" (or "iLDH" if we need to invent bits of
>jargon). Therefore, the goal of the current work really is [DNS that
>works for every (Unicode-defined) script] the way [DNS works for ASCII
>today]. I want to leave language out of it, because even though
>humans happen to use labels as signifiers, they're only parts of
>language in the passing theory of the interlocutors (cf. Donald
We agree. This results from ISO 3166 compliance (which is the world
referent in terms of sovereignty, scripts-and-languages).
I thank you for your answers. They will help. I will compile the
answers as I did about "funycode".
> > Question (A): does this IETF WG-IDNABIS seek to document an IDNA based
> > ML-DNS in order to be ready for testing by Dec. 2008 (Y/N)?
>I think the goal is a short document cycle. Being as it's May, I
>think December may be a little optimistic.
> > Question (B): If A is "N", what are the clearly defined and committed
> > detailed specifications of the Nov. 2008 IETF deliverable?
>This is question begging. We don't know until the protocol
>specification is done.
> > 1- will it be mainly focussed towards Mobiles, Browsers, Applications, or
> > the three of them?
>None or all. It will be mainly focussed towards labels in the DNS,
>and their interpretations by IDNA-interpreting clients, whatever they
> > 2- will it be phishing proof at every DN level?
>No. Even ASCII isn't.
> > 3- which scripts or charset and languages will be supported? or will it be
> > transparent to scripts choices?
>This is a loaded question; but I think we're still working out which
>scripts get included.
> > 4- will it be IDN2003 compatible?
> > 5- will it strive to be future ML-DNS interoperable?
>I'm unwilling to speculate.
> > 6- why was the IDNA option chosen as the best way to support ML-DNS vs.
> > other possibilities?
>I think this is part of what John's current draft is about.
> > 7- will Microsoft, Google, and Firefox fully and identically support it?
> > Will they also permit the support of any other ML-DNS proposition?
>You'll have to ask them.
> > 8 - will it support easily additional symbols such as logos?
>Not as currently outlined.
> > 9 - will it stay ISO 3166 conformant?
>I don't think I understand this question.
>No hat, and best regards,
More information about the Idna-update