RE: [idn] Re: names of various sorts

[Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com [mailto:Mark.Andrews@nominum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 1:34 AM
> To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: [idn] Re: names of various sorts 
> 
> 
> 
> > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does 
> not understand
> > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> > 
> > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CDF.BDCF5390
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> > 
> > 
> > Before you, Mark, started to confuse the issue, it was clear to
> > everyone (on this list) that the domain names we were trying to
> > internationalise were primarily the ones seen by "ordinary people".
> > If other domain names are (or need to be) internationalised along
> > with that, then that is a bonus.
> 
> 	I started to confuse everyone?  There was plenty of confusion
> 	on this list before I started saying anything.  Even the chair
> 	did not understand the terms he was using (he does now).

Well, this began with you saying, completely without any explanation,
that we should differentiate between "host names" and "domain names".
Several people asked for an explanation of what you meant, but none
was offered. After weeks of silence, the issue resurfaced, still
without any clear explanation from you.

> 	There were people on this list saying that domain names were
> 	restricted to 'a' - 'z', '0' - '9', '-' and '.'.  There were
> 	others saying they were restricted to ASCII.

That was all in reference to particular protocols that uses
(some restricted form of) domain name.

>  Yet others that
> 	know what is actually legal in a domainname and what is the
> 	standard presentation form.
> 
> 	Everybody was talking at cross purposes.

Perhaps.  Unfortunately you did not manage to improve the situation,
which wasn't so bad as you say in the first place.

> 	I set out to *remove* confusion by actually reminding people
> 	that there are terms that describe the subsets of domainnames
> 	that are talking about.
> 
> 	The IETF is a technical body.  Everyone here should be capable
> 	of dealing with technical issues and precise technical
> 	definitions.

Yes, indeed.  But empty statements without any explanations are
not helpful.  RTFM is not a good style of debate.  If you have
something to say, explain yourself.

> > By the way, your message is an excellent illustration of why
> > suggestions like CIDNUC and (the misnamed) UTF-5 (it's NOT a UTF)
> > are unacceptable suggestions: even after a decade of QP the
> > encoding still leaks through to the poor reader, and it's a
> > reencoding into ASCII that is so unique essentially to e-mail
> > that no ordinary programs that handle text handles that reencoding.
> > The same will be true for CIDNUC and (the misnamed) UTF-5,
> > so such proposals should not be pursued further.  We've lived
> > through a decade of QP horror and it still haunts us (quite
> > needlessly, 8bit IS available) and we certainly don't need
> > several more decades of CIDNUC horror.
> > 
> > 
> > 		Kind regards
> > 		/kent k
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com [mailto:Mark.Andrews@nominum.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:36 PM
> > > To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [idn] Proposed suggestions from Asia Pacific Top
> > > LevelDomain meeting 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > <smaller>Niklas.=C5berg@=C4lvdalen-skog.se.  And so on for 
> > > the worlds
> > > > all</smaller>=20
> > > 
> > > 	
> > > 	Because you could not encode the above email address in
> > > 	the DNS with then restrictions people on this list seem to
> > > 	want to put on international domain names.  The IETF does
> > > 	not allow periods in interational domain name labels.
> > 
> > ?????  Are you really trying to tell us something or are you just
> > continuing to try to confuse people?
> 
> 	No, I was trying to point out what will happen if we don't
> 	deal with the whole issue.
> 
> > If you want to explain
> > something and want me to understand, you have to put it in terms
> > that somebody who is not very familiar with the details of the
> > protocols you are talking about can understand.  Note that
> > silly comparisons with apples and oranges DO NOT help,
> 
> 	Well when terms like 'subset' don't get the message across
> 	I thought I would try a common metaphor that most people on
> 	the list would have had contact with in the First Class (K1).
> 
> > nor do unexplained acronyms for various kinds of 'records'.
> 
> 	SRV see RFC2782
> > 
> > > 	Or sorry you can't a a SRV record to redirect http for
> > > 	=C4lvdalen-skog.se to a different set of boxes.  The IETF
> > > 	(through the idn working group) was too short sited to
> > > 	fully internationalise the DNS, they just internationalised
> > > 	host names and underscores are not legal in hostnames.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "http" in connection with "boxes".
> 
> 	And you can't even look at the example presented and see that
> 	there is a underscore and http in a label even if you havn't

Given the exposed QP and nonce \196 it's hard to tell what those
underscores really are.  Might as well be an encoding mishap as the rest.

> 	looked up what a SRV record is.
> 
> > Anyway, it appears to me that HTTP can already handle domain
> > names in UTF-8 without any major problems (except that there is
> > no normalisation nor case folding).  I.e., apart from that some
> > operators are now actively blocking that kind of names. Given
> > that that change (to block) only took a few days to implement,
> > I guess it can only take a few days to unblock...
> > 
> > > 		e.g. 
> > > 			_http._tcp.\196lvdalen-skog.se
> > > 
> > > 	Or to put it another way IDNS will not get past the IESG
> > > 	and IETF last call unless it deals with all domain names
> > > 	and not just host names.
> > > 
> > > 	Can you now see why I am trying to point out the distinction
> > > 	between domain names and host names.  Can you also now see
> > > 	why we need to define what is a IDN and what is a IHN.
> > >
> > > 	Mark
> > > --
> > > Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
> > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: 
> > > Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
> > > 
> > 
> 	We are potentially changing the existing DNS. It would be
> 	polite of everyone on this list if they took the time to
> 	find out how it is used today so that the proposals being
> 	made do not break existing functionality that is being used.


It would be polite to motivate what one says without assuming that
everyone is a DNS hacker.  If you refer to an RFC, then refer to 
the exact spot, AND quote the relevant text, please.  At least
I'm not too keen on plowing through hundreds of pages of hard-to-
understand text just to try to guess what you might mean.  If you
add your analysis of the quotes made, you might be able to make
your point.  Apples and oranges not required.

			Kind regards
			/kent k


> 	Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: 
> Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
>