[arabic-vip] Variants implications on registry operations and DNSSEC

[Raed Al-Fayez]

Thanks Andrew ..

First of all I want to clarify that the goal of putting a list of questions on each issue is to help understanding what are the possible technical requirements for a registry to consider. 
Some of the question may be valid for a registry while others may not. In other words they represents different direction/scenarios each registry can choose. So some of them may be applicable for a scenario and other are applicable for different senarios.

I will try to clarify some of the issues that you have raised:

#1: Noted .. Thanks for clarification.

#2.b: The intention of the question matches your  1st interpretation. I may add your example to make more clear. 
Regarding the 2nd interpretation I think the case should be consider as a one set (if A=B & B=C then A=C).

#2.c: I am not sure! I think they may need to add some EPP extensions or registry APIs.

#3: It's just a question and I think the user should have the right to choose what variants to choose. But some registry may do automatic bundling (it depends on the registry directions on this issue).

#3.a: Noted .. Sorry it was a typo .. I was referring to the BNAME (draft RFC maybe dead not sure).

#4: Reserved name are names that no one can register (e.g. city/country names) . Some of the reserved name may be registered to specific entities (e.g. city name can be registered to the government of that city). This issue handles the variant(s) of such name (that’s why I called them "reserved names variant" .. can be changed if needed).

#5.b: When users want to reach a domain name they will use a keyboard to type in the domain. So if you used a keyboard in an internet café in Saudi Arabia you will type the domain name using the Arabic language. However if you are in Pakistan you most probably will be typing the domain name in Urdu Language. So uses will use languages to type a domain name and not a script. So the question says is it possible to type a domain name by mixing different types of YEH ( 064A which is used in Arabic language & 06CC which is used in Persian language)? And I believe the answer should be no ... but again this is a registry decision.

#7.a: Noted .. Thanks for clarification. I am not an expert in DNSSEC and I hope that you (and other experts) help us more in this issue. 

#8.a: Well as what I have clarified in the beginning of my email.. The questions covers different scenarios and they may not be applicable to all scenarios. 

Hope that I have successfully clarified the issues.. and not mixing things together ;)

Thanks again for your kind input and I am open to change any word or add any question to the list.


With best regards,

Raed I. Al-Fayez
------------------------------------------
Senior IT Projects Specialist, M.Sc, PMP
Saudi Network Information Center (SaudiNIC) 
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)
Tel: + 966-1-2639235   - Fax: + 966-1-2639393
http://www.nic.net.sa

-----Original Message-----
From: arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org [mailto:arabic-vip-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 6:16 PM
To: arabic-vip at icann.org
Subject: Re: [arabic-vip] Variants implications on registry operations and DNSSEC

Dear colleagues,

Thanks for the comprehensive list.  This is an excellent foundation.
Some follow-up questions and observations are inline below.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 07:44:11AM +0000, Raed Al-Fayez wrote:
> 

> 1.  Whois: The registry might need to change how the whois information 
> are handled and displayed. For example if someone searches for a 
> string in the whois tool (web/cmd) and that string represents a 
> variant for an already registered domain name then the registry might 
> indicates the status of that variant (e.g. active or
> inactive) along with the whois information for the domain name (which 
> is the base for that variant).

In this context, it's also important to remember that a command-line whois may have trouble sending U-labels and high-bit addresses and so on.  RFC 3912 explicitly notes that whois has not been internationalized.  (Note that whois is _not_ an ASCII-only protocol, but there's no way to signal character set.)

> 2.       Registration Processes: The registry should change the
> registration process

> b.  Is it possible for the same set of variants to be registered/used 
> by different registrants?

I'm not sure whether I understand this question, because it leads me to two different possible interpretations.  

The first is this: for a given label ("L") there is a set of possible alternatives for that label (which we can represent as {PV1, PV2, …, PVn} -- "PV" means "possible variant")  Is it possible for different registrants to register L, PV1, PV2, and so on?  (For what it's worth, the draft definitions document had some terms that were an attempt to give names to these different labels.)

The second is this: for two given labels, La and Lb, each has a set of possible alternatives for that label: {PVa1, PVa2, …, PVan} and {PVb1, PBb2, …, PVbn}.  Now, since La and Lb can be registered by different registrants, is it possible that the two possible variant sets have a member in common (that is, could it ever happen that PVa1 == PBb1)?
What to do in this case?

> c.  Should the registry list all possible variants for a domain name 
> at the end of the registration process or separate that from the 
> registration process?

In a registry-registrar-registrant model, how would this listing work? 

> 3.        Delegation: The registry should decide how to handle the variants and how to activated/bundled them.
> 

Is that a claim if principle, or is it a question?  That is, if the registrant is supposed to choose from the list in (c) above, shouldn't the registrant have some say in this too?

> Here are some questions (about this issue) that each registry should consider:
> 
> a.       How to delegate the variants for a given domain name from technical point of view (use NS, DNAME, CNAME ..etc)?
> 

It can't be CNAME, note.  If there is a delegation, CNAME doesn't handle that: it redirects things _at_ the name but not beneath it.  So CNAME cannot be used to handle delegations.

> 4.       Reserved List: The registry may need to block reserved names variants.

Is there a definition of the term "reserved names variant"?  What makes a name reserved?

> 
> b.      Can a variant be composed of code-points within one language table or it can be mixed of code-points across the script?

I'm nervous about this question, because of the terms "language table"
and "script".  Languages can be written in more than one script, and most languages are written with a subset of the characters with a given Unicode script property.  What is meant here?

> 7.        DNSSEC: The registry may need to think more about key management specially when they adopt variants.
> 
> Here are some questions (about this issue) that each registry should consider:
> 
> a.       Are the variants going to share the same signing-key or each variant will have its own signing-key?

>From the registry's point of view, the above may make too many
assumptions about how this will work.  There are two models for DNSSEC operation.  One has the child (the registrant/registry) side transfer the key to the parent (the registry), thereby allowing the parent to generate the necessary DS record.  In that case, the parent could of course enforce a rule about the same or different keys.  But if the child sends the DS record to the parent, then the parent can't do anything about this, because the DS is a hash and its value will depend on the owner name.

> 8.       Defining Language table/variant table: The registry should decide what are the supported languages along with defining language table & variants table for each support language.
> 
> Here are some questions (about this issue) that each registry should consider:
> 
> a.       What are the supported languages in the registry's TLD?

There was an earlier question about whether the registrant needs to provide the language for the label.  If not, but there are limitations on the "supported language", then how will this work?

Best regards,

Andrew

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.