Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent

jefsey jefsey at
Sun Aug 21 01:08:29 CEST 2011

Dear John,

If I supported the IDNA2008 consensus it was because it suited my 
vision of the Internet architecture. This was a surprise. This meant 
that it was possible to read as the two faces of the same coin
* the 2011 "inside Internet" that the IETF influences and documents. 
IANA glossary, PRECIS propositions
* and the 2011 "outside Internet encapsulation" that we, its users, 
want to intelligently utilize . ICANN/WG/VIP, IUCG.

Actually as the two sides of a smart interface that I call the IUI as:
* the Internet Use Interface on its Internet side.
* the Intelligent Use Interface on the User's side, because the IUI 
can also interface the same user with other technologies that will 
converge at the IUI.

As you know this vision of mine raised two main problems:(1) where to 
document the IUI and (2) the need to experiment in order to correctly 
document it.


1. My appeals to the IESG and IAB permitted the IETF to answer the 
first question. The IESG proposed for me to run a BOF about what it 
considered as research, but the IAB made it clear that the IETF was 
concerned but that it was not in its bailiwick.

My evaluation is that the IUI is an "IUser" 
(Internet/Intelligent/independent, etc. user) community issue. This 
community of identified users, should be liaised with the IETF. I use 
the IUCG for that and the help/support/ideas of its small team.


2. The particular IUI architecture that I investigate is in line with 
the architecture that I use, support, and have deployed for more than 
thirty years.

2.1. It is based on my extended systems understanding of:

*  the way systems, diversity, complexity, and simplicity are 
articulated (much in tune with the three basic principles of the 
Internet architecture: constant change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 
3439), and subsidiarity (as this results from the IDNA2008 
architecture, once addressed the architecturally wrong location of 
IDNA in applications instead of at the IUI).

* the particular case of communications where transmitted contents 
use static metadata in telecoms, metadata contained in the packet in 
datacommunications like the Internet, and separated metadata in what 
I call the metacommunications. IDNA2008 the way it implements the 
presentation layer in the Internet is at the border with metacoms.

2.2. From experience (Tymnet Extended Services), I think the location 
of the metacoms support is to be on the user side so that it is 
transparent to the network use. This is the Internet PLUS 
architecture, i.e. plugged additional OSEX layers (Extended OSI) on 
the user side. This layers can also be faked in a centralized manner, 
and result in the "+" approach: e.g. Google+.

2.3. The way IDNA2008 is designed calls for two necessary moves:

* to use the DNS to deliver network oriented metadata, hence by 
synergy in order to, most probably, probably use DDDS registries for 
intersem (semantic internet layers above) referent data management 
and an IPv6 like registry addressing. In any case JTC1/SG32/WG2 is to 
be carefully considered and I miss the time for that.

* a total separation from the Unicode typography that is not able to 
easily cope with network use requirements and to support human 
oriented algorithms. This separation does not need to be repudiation. 
However, the Internet MUST be supported by a network/human oriented 
universal semiotic system. I think it can start with a graphic 
(passive) and then a dynamic sign oriented approach in CLASS 0, as a 
common safe support of the other classes above, including the IN class.


3. The danger of what we found and in such architecture is that it 
actually is the Internet technology architecture. There is not a 
single change in the existing RFCs or in a single bit in the existing 
protocols that is needed. However, there are a lot of opportunities 
for adjustments and, at the same time, there is major pressure being 
imposed on the whole architecture and on in particular on the ML-DNS 
(i.e. an IDNA2008 compliant encapsulation of the DNS). This pressure 
is the gTLD project of ICANN with its gTLD fee and delays. This may 
lead to a lot of individual architectural "tunings" to evade ICANN or 
to protect ICANN; in addition to these "adjustments", such as PRECIS.


4. My first idea was to use the notoriety of ICANN's plans and Google 
Public DNS to experiment IDNA2008 compliant free gTLDs (like 
Projet.FRA). Then to proceed from there on, before anyone could try 
to make a business of it. A quick and dirty move to force everyone to 
understand where we are, how weak the Internet is IRT the market and 
sponsors, make people integrate diversity into their network thinking 
process. For personal reasons you know I was not able to dedicate 
myself to this. At the same time, I did better explore as to what the 
very initial visions of the Internet actually brought. Not only the 
"networking group", but others too.

There is a solution I wish to try to revive, if possible in parallel 
(partial code integration). However, if that solution has been 
disregarded it is probably because of the complication that the IETF 
has reached. So the priority for me is to clarify and simplify the 
model. You already did a lot with IDNA2008, but it is not enough as 
we stayed (Charter) within the IDNA concept. We have to come back to 

The Internet MUST be considered from the outside as a unique and 
simple system (service black box) that is able to support several, 
and more or less equivalent architectures, on the user side. I agree 
with John Day: we miss an Internet OS. To implement it calls for a 
clearer and coherent technical culture. The internet tomography is 
still to be done.

The earthquake is the RFC 5895. It is from there that we need to 
proceed. In two directions:

4.1. to think, accommodate, test, and deploy a simpler, clearer, etc. 
Internet of today, i.e. multilingual and semiotic ready (support of 
passive [as today] but also active and localized content).

4.2. to make sure that the "patches" being discussed in parallel do 
not conflict and block that innovation.

My understanding (bet?) is that, as usual, the single point of 
simplicity to obtain this is for everyone to use the same language 
and for the concepts underlying that that language to be open enough 
so they permit to clearly spell out the "post IDNA2008 possible".

This is why I engaged the IUCG to compile all the data, ideas, 
demands, confusion, etc. on multilingualization (i.e. architectural 
linguistic neutrality) that are discussed. We are probably still 
missing many things currently, but we have compiled 73 dense pages.


Your misunderstanding about the way we use wikis (as a quickly 
visible to all mailing archives, that can be translated in the 
MindMap), has led me to work this afternoon for you. And to build the 
next step. This still is NOT a document; this is only a next phase 
IUse community working wiki, located at 
This is rough stuff. My intent is to digest it through a clear 
network ontology and model (ontography) and tune it until its 
coherent with what the Internet IS and what our IUI MUST be. So that 
it can become a reference glossary.

Obviously, there will be parts that do not belong to the IETF area, 
but to the IUTF area (the emerging IUse technical TF). That is 
because of our IUse center of the world is not your IETF/Unicode 
center of the world. However, we need our common world to entually be 
unique even if all this takes time to think, adjust; set-up. This is 
why I am making the place of that work visible to well-intentioned 
people and why I give my deep thanks to those who help.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Idna-update mailing list