Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jan 30 19:34:27 CET 2014
At 02:39 30/01/2014, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>However, I think I have been convinced by this thread that UTS #46
>might be good enough as replacement for IDNA2003. Once it has been
>clarified per the feedback I submitted I will incorporate it in the
>URL Standard. It's unfortunate that even #46 is implemented in
>different ways. :-(
I am interested in the pragmatic "InterUse" aspects that I need (cf.
infra). If you bear with me a minute, I will explain how I understand
where the whole system stands, how it is probably evolving, and where
the practical solution should be or where you could locate them and
how, with who it will have to be discussed, and self organization
1. INTERNETTING POJECT
The internet has an architectonical doctrine (IEN 48), architectural
plan (IAB), technological author (IETF), documentary embodiment
(RFCs), practical operation guidance (BCPs), registries (RIRs),
operators (ISPs), enabling protocols (code) in order to answer its
motivations (or more if possible).
The author of IEN 48 is the chair of this WG. We, therefore, have
through him a remarkable continuity. I see in these texts (IEN 48 and
the WG of this charter) -
- a remarkably simple, robust, and efficient logic that I qualify as:
- "internet": proof of Louis Pouzin's catenet concept on a global
plane (i.e. non-formatted ASCII text oriented interconnectivity and
- "intertech": exploration of a multitechnology support by this proof
of concept, i.e. the addition of the layer six presentation/Tymnet
equivalent. Missing, but many uncoupled applications (e.g. Web).
- "interuse": "an improved means to produce and use stable and
unambiguous IDN identifiers" for everyone (network access + machine
technology + people culture). (cf. RFC 3271).
2. THE IDNA SUPPORT
The problem of this WG was to address the interuse stratum without
the intertech stratum having been coherently documented, tested, and
proven. This is why:
2.1. initially I said that I would support the WG work on the
internet stratum in order to support my own additions that I called
the ML-DNS (ML having multiple meanings corresponding to various
multilateral, multiledger, multilayer, multilingual, etc. aspects).
2.2. I opposed Vint Cerf when he attempted a layer violation in
trying to incorporate layer six tasks in the end to end internet
2.3. This was elegantly addressed by Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffman's
future RFC 5895 which "unusually" exemplified in an IETF layers
document how the intertech strata could interface the internet
specifications and requirement. Actually it meant that no fringe to
fringe (cf. RFC 1958) MUST was incorporated in an end to end RFC.
Today, the problems we face are the practical interuse problems while
the intertech is still in limbo as a set of post-presentation systems
(such as the Web).
3. THE INTERTECH: PL6 and IUI
I was reluctant to work on this intertech stratum because these
things demand time (and money) before being commonly understood,
worked on, and tested, etc. The huge risk was to be passed by crime
and or merchants (RFC 3869) because a quick and *dirty* solution
calls for very limited work. The difficulty was to avoid the dirty
aspect, hence to create a forum for everyone to be able to work on a
matter which is similar, in continuation, but foreign to the IETF,
and to make sure that there was no area conflict with the IETF and an
established bridge (now IUCG at IETF). The intertech means providing a
presentation layer six (PL6) as a "plugged layer on the user side"
(PLUS) as part of IUIs (intelligent use interfaces).
4. SNOWDEN'S CONTRIBUTION
The Post-Snowden general awareness removes the risk of the crime but
increases the merchants' risk (moreover, Vint is now on Google's side
with Harald Alvestrand and Mark Davis). The well-organized OpenStand
+ /1NET operation shows it. This distracts people from the real
concern: all the NSAs of the world operate easily on a very
vulnerable Internet, and so the final distrust is in the IETF
capacity to produce a robustly secure technology.
5. INTERSEM CONSIDERATIONS
Now, please remember that I come from Tymnet Extended Services, i.e.
what followed in the "internet pile" over theinternet, intertech, and
partly interuse, i.e. is what I call the Intersem, the semiotics
stratum, the internet of ideas/subjects. There, I have two problems
that are being quite discussed right now:
- the ONS, i.e. the integration of the IoT, internet of things, into
the picture. I am interested in understanding how Fadi Chehehade,
Mathieu Weil, GS1, etc. are going to proceed and how this will
compare with the IDNS in its relation to the DNS Question: will this
help/hamper the general semantic addressing system and its digital
names as we plan it (strict conformity to the DNS, as IDNA with the
addition of CNAME confusion for class support).
- the pseudo "balkanization" of the internet that is a commercial
campaign for the UNICODE "globalization/internationalization" against
the "nationalizations" of WCIT US opponents which is a risk to
internet stability resulting from the support of the IANA by a
structure with political ambitions.
Time has, therefore, come to satisfy everyone through the
globalization of the IANA (ICANN has no real technical interest)
within a multistakeholderist framework. The fragmentation is linked
to the dispute over the root file. The solution is, therefore, to
come back to the initial Tymnet days and suppress the fragmentation
risks in making the top zone data ubiquitous. This is the very simple
6. HOMEROOT POJECT
This means empowering everyone with his/her own root file, so
everyone is a multistakeholder on an equal footing. This is the
1. as long as the data are the same there is no misdirection risk.
2. since the resolution is carried at the user fringe, there is no
buffer cross pollution. Anyway, TTL decrease with AJAX.
3. the root servers will remain in an ever increasing traffic, so
that the NSA will keep some metadata processing .
4. this is a clean technical response to ICE that does not not
require national root server systems.
5. IDNA2008 modules and value added modules (supporting IDNA2003,
etc. variations) will be possible (for example, through IDNAxxxx
6. it will be possible to fully use the class mechanism for a unique
internet with multiple visions.
7. the resolver will serve as a seed for the IUI (Intelligent Use
Interface) to support new services, technologies, network
applications, OPESes, etc.
An MS-IG debate (or at least parts of it that IUsers would support)
- an integrated installation and parametering the support of a local
resolver on Windows/Linux/Mac
- the publication of hint files by trusted third parties and governments
- the architectural definition of the IUI within an interpresentation
framework (netix) extending the posix system interface to network use.
- in order to allow the definition, documentation, and deployment of
format presentation services local operating tasks within the IUI
Interbox transparently to the user application.
You will note that this is in pure thinking continuity with IDNA where:
- the user enters the "data" of an identifier in their own way.
- that are treated by IDNA to become the identifier "tracta" sent to the DNS
- that become the "capta" received by the other side
- that transformed them into final "tracta" that the application will
be able to use (which may differ from the initial "data" if the IDNA
context is not the same).
This corresponds to an additional technological and thinking plane,
i.e. in addition to information and communications, to the
intellition plane and to ibits, i.e. intelligently implied bits. An
example is what PRISM delivers as a pertinent reality information
system monitor. The transiting data are possibly treated by OPES on
the wire. And that OPES can be interconnected in underlying ONES
(open network of edge systems). Just to stay in the IDNA context,
ONES may coordinate the treatment of variants in adding syllodata to
the datagram/domain name metadata (i.e. the data between the data,
for example between linked data).
I fully understand that these considerations are new to most. They
just belong to the continuation of the agoric approach initiated by
Norman Hardy the conceiver of the Tymnet architecture. Agorics is the
polylectic (networked) generalization of Aristotle's logic dialectic
(x and y then z conclusion) and of the Wiener cybernetic monolectic
(action then reaction). Agorics results in emergences related to the
networked syllodatas attractor.
I suppose that the MS-IG will soon look seriously at these notions,
spurred by projects such as HomeRoot, PL6 and DARPA cyber grand
challenge. This is in line with the INTLNET MDRS project (metadata
referential/multilingual distributed registry system/service) that I
introduced at the 2006 UNESCO/ITU meeting as a continuation of the
INTLFILE that became the root file. An agoric consideration of the
DARPA CGC shows that real-time tracta correction (i.e. a super
semantic firewall) will demand it to encapsulate an architectony,
i.e. a semantic general model of the universe that is able to
understand the context and the pertinence of the inputs. This kind of
system should be able to correct the IDN related uncertainties.
8. POTENTIALITY FORECAST
I suspect that the political and societal governance evolution will
probably pair with the technical evolution, so it will probably be an
interactive process once users understand that they can interact with
the technical development and that it depends on no one they could
distrust. Distrust will then be only of themselves: they will
consider their involvement as dangerous until some experience and
press show and explain to them that this is not complex. A common
This is why technical governance is of the essence: it will have to
influence the coordination of the different initiatives and uses of
the internet as a test-bed (cf. ICANN/ICP-3).
1. improvement and simplification of BIND installation on Windows
including default parameter files.
2. development and support of an IANA root+ local update tool.
3. definition of a network oriented open code license.
4. split of a browser as a virtual machine acting as an IUI + screen.
5. documentation of the parametering and of the interaction between
IUI (presentation layer 6 project).
This means, in this case, that users and user applications could
forget about scripts that will be handled by the IUI OPES that will
punycode encode/decode the data/capta flow as part of the layer 6
functions. Synchronization issues if any should then be dealt with a
MS enhanced cooperation to be formed among IUse actors, IANA, IETF,
UNICODE, W3C, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update