[vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue

[JFC Morfin]

At 10:40 22/08/2011, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>On 2 aug 2011, at 18:37, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
> > By TLD I mean TLD and by prefix I mean whatever label(s) someone 
> may want to conventinally introduce prior to the domain name he/she uses.
>
>A domain name is whatever set of one or more labels you for example 
>can use in a DNS query that together with type and class form the 
>triple on which matching is based.
>What you seem to talk about is one label in a domain name, but not a 
>domain name.

Dear Patrick,

Please remember that when we started the WG/IDNA2008 work, I asked 
Vint if the intent was to address the needs of the users or the needs 
of the Internet, as per the charter. The response from James Seng 
confirmed by Vint was: the needs of the Internet. I then said I will 
develop the ML-DNS to suit the needs of the users based upon the 
IDNA2008 outcome if this was possible. At a given time the debate 
shown it would not be possible and we opposed for that reason. I was 
therefore fired with some "Jefsey's disciples", etc. At the end of 
the day we surprisingly were able to reach a consensus because it 
turned out that the Internet technology was able, in an "unusual" way 
(RFC 5895):

1. to support IDNA2008 on the network side - as per the WG. Hence the 
consensus with our mental restriction concerning othotypographic 
metadata.(e.g. French majuscules)
2. to support IDNA2008 on the user side through what I call "IUI" 
(Internet/Intelligent Use Interface) with the users' machine and its 
applications. Work to be carried somewhere.

I asked IESG/IAB where. They made clear was that the possible IUI 
definition, experimentation, etc. was of potential interest to the 
IETF but was no part of its scope. Hence the need to initiate a place 
to carry that work (IUTF, etc.) and a way to liaise with the IETF as 
an "IETF client". The IUCG which helped the IDNA2008 consensus on our 
side seems to be the proper place for that since it is a user's need.

Now, I have a personal difficulty.

1. The IUI is an architectural component which has to be neutrally 
defined on a general architectural basis.
2. Then I have my own architectural project (I name Internet PLUS) to 
develop and support an IUI. There may be others.

However, the IUI concept being a new one, my own experimental 
implementation will validate it. I am therefore to be careful at not 
confusing what is intrinsic to a subsidiary extension of the Internet 
architecture (I call the SDNS [subsidiary DNS] in the DNS case) and 
what belongs to my own SDNS implementation, I carry through ALFA.

In *my* implementation, the necessary dialog between the user and its 
network piece of intelligence located at the participating IUIs 
(local, host, cybship - i.e. all the other processes controlled by 
the user whatever the machine) can simply be carried by a "netix" 
command set also delivered by what I name "prefixes".


This being said. In my personal project, if we take the 
"xyz.icann.org" domain name, if I can differentiate "xyz", I can 
consider "icann.org" as the registered domain name of ICANN and "xyz" 
as a netix "prefix" which has been introduced prior to that domain 
name - however it looks as being a part of it so it goes through to 
the ML-DNS. The way this prefix is to be used is no part of the 
Internet and of the Internet DNS, but will be filtered and applied by 
the ML-DNS. For example, I can say that "9--2.icann.org" is to be 
understood by the ML-DNS as to stand for a class 2 "icann.org" FQDN, 
the ML-DNS will make the DNS resolve as such.

This means that "9--2.xn--jean-franois-sdb.jefsey.com" will be 
"jean-françois.jefsey.com" in CLASS 2. However, please remember that 
this is only because the ML-DNS acts as a smart middleware 
IDNApplication (cf. the scheme in 
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary). And with an ML-DNS, 
Internet PLUS experimental implementation.

Why is this important to the IETF? For consistency reasons. Post 
IDNA2008 solutions should be consistent (RFC 1958) to be stable. For 
the time being we have at least seven entities considering them:
- IAB
- UNICODE
- PRECIS at protocol level
- ICANN at DNS governance level
- emerging IUTF at IUI level
- IUCG at user satisfaction level
- and me at research and experimental level.
I am sure there are others.

Hence, my effort to get a common glossary and communication to help 
problems mutual understanding,
jfc