wrt IDNA2008 migration (was: IDN processing-related security considerations for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec)

J-F C. Morfin jfc at morfin.org
Tue Oct 4 01:58:06 CEST 2011

At 00:41 03/10/2011, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>Jefsey and dear colleagues,
>I frankly think we share the same sun but are planets apart

I apologize for this partly off-topic mail.


I do not think your mail was appropriate. One does not get the 
support of people in hurting them with ad hominems and ad personams. 
IETF is in charge of the Internet. ITU is in charge of Telecoms. This 
makes different SDOs and different areas, but the same level of 
dedication. The Intersem is something more different from the 
Internet than the Internet is from Telecoms because there is a layer 
gap (active/local content extended services) between Datacoms and 
what we call Metacoms. This raised the question of the progression: 
the WG/IDNABis work is precisely what shown how to fill this gap and 
permit our further progression, i.e.:

- architecturally: by external subsidiarity in full respect of the 
internal Internet and of the external user applications.
- documentation wise: through the IUCG, i.e. the cooperation of those 
who strive to explore the Intersem area with those who strive to make 
its Internet basis work better. We certainly still have to make it 
happen, and I understand your impatience, but at least we know how 
now: the IUI. And this was a good surprise we also still have to digest.

In the past I had to oppose Unicode as a consortium, and more 
recently I had to oppose some propositions within this WG. This was 
because I considered them commercially biased, as per the IAB RFC 
3869 very honest standards, and therefore detrimental to everyone 
(Telecoms, Common and Extended Datacoms, and Metacoms [that we are 
not alone to explore]). The work carried by the IETF and Unicode 
people is brilliant and we need them for the Internet to exist, and 
further on the Intersem to emerge. There are no bias. There is 
respectable specialization.

We are not on planets apart: we are at different layers of the same 
communication system. And our layer(s) are not well defined yet. Give 
me a final definition and a working proto of the Intersem.

RFC 1958 explains that to be stamped as "Internet", propositions must 
be scalable. IDNA2003 was not architecturally scalable, but was 
operationally scalable as Mark hinted it. IDNA2008 turns out not only 
to be scalable in terms of linguistic diversity but to exemplify how 
the whole Internet is by nature more architecturally scalable than 
expected. This is what delays me: I am only interested in the 
"Internet Plus" solution to experiment and validate the IUI concepts 
and power. But that power is much broader than I foresaw and it takes 
time to understand it within the Internet architecture and then to 
experiment it in order to learn its pitfalls.

I started with the simple idea for the ML-DNS of building a DNS 
technology fork, adding linguistic and format IDNA2008 conferment and 
extended converters, in order to handle domain names as a multilayer 
pile structure. The IDNA2008 "unusual" (RFC 5895) case and IUI have 
open an architecturally consistent possibility to support fringe to 
fringe active/local content without change to the Internet legacy 
achitecture, which only is oriented towards end to end passive 
content transport.

First, classes, netix interapplications, etc. seemed enough to 
additionally focus on. Now we consider a full Intersem network 
operating system, plus true multilingualization and semiotics, 
graphcodes and orthotypography (variants), plus the emergence of 
diktyology as a major new discipline, plus semantic processing and 
the need of the direct involvement of syllodata and of a noetic 
architectony: these things big issues and they have nothing to do 
with the IETF. The same as W3C and semantic Web has nothing to do 
with ITU. Except practical discussions like the IANA and ISO 11179 on 
the happiana list.

So, please: WG/IDNAbis and IUCG are IETF. So let us talk of IETF 
issues, in the IETF way and netiquette. IDNA2003 was architecturally 
incomplete. IAB evaluated the consequences. This is why they called 
for IDNA2008 and he IESG approved the WG/IDNAbis charter. ML-DNS 
would permit to provide IDNA2003 full compatibility (including fringe 
to fringe French majuscules). What I tried to explain Mark is that if 
he wishes to keep an IDNA2003 environment and to enhance it, he can 
discuss it under IDNA2008 ML-DNS. I am late because I laked time and 
resources and as I just said the matter became very large, this is 
true, but my propositions are public and everyone can use them and pass me.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list