From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Tue Apr 3 08:26:23 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA28253 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14kPMV-000GsC-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:52:39 -0700 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14kPMU-000Gs4-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:52:38 -0700 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27155; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104031152.HAA27155@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 07:52:36 -0400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Domain Name Working Group of the IETF. Title : Internationalized Domain Names and Unique Identifiers/Names Author(s) : L. Tseng et al. Filename : draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt Pages : Date : 02-Apr-01 One of the biggest technical challenge of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) is how to determine if the two given domain names matches. The current approach to this problem is via a process known as [NAMEPREP]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010402124722.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idn-uname-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010402124722.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 11 07:30:23 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA20778 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14nINg-000LHm-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:01:48 -0700 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14nINe-000LHP-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:01:46 -0700 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20122; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104111101.HAA20122@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:01:43 -0400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Domain Name Working Group of the IETF. Title : Han Ideograph (CJK) for Internationalized Domain Names Author(s) : J. Seng et al. Filename : draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 10-Apr-01 During the development of Internationalized Domain Name (IDN), it is discovered that there is a substantial lack of information and misunderstanding on Han ideographs and its folding mechanism. This document attempts to address some of the issues on doing han folding with respect to IDN. Hopefully, this will dispel some of the common misunderstanding of this problem and to discuss some of the issues with han ideograph and its folding mechanism. This document addresses very specific problem to IDN and thus is not meant as a reference for generic Han folding. Generic Han folding are much more complicated and certainly beyond this document. However, the use of this document may be applicable to other areas that are related with names, e.g. Common Name Resolution Protocol [CNRP]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010410135052.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010410135052.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 12 21:55:30 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA15814 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14nsZl-0007uR-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:41 -0700 Received: from df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.8.8]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14nsZj-0007uL-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:39 -0700 Received: from df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.33]) by df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2831); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:41:25 -0700 Received: from 172.30.236.11 by df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Received: from DINO.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.101]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2905); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:34 -0700 Subject: [idn] Test -- please discard Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:40:34 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thread-Topic: Test -- please discard content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-Index: AcC5LN9d/CmOwnr5ScyWI6HBBVo5zwKjaYIQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4683.0 From: "Russ Rolfe" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2001 01:40:34.0317 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB7BF3D0:01C0C3BA] Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id VAA15814 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Fri Apr 13 10:44:20 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA09729 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14o4O2-000O9z-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:17:22 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14o4O1-000O9e-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:17:21 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3DER1184930 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:27:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20010413101710.0292f770@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:18:07 -0400 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Marc Blanchet Subject: [idn] Fwd: archived video from ietf50 now online... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, our minneapolis idn meeting was multicasted so it is archived. For people who were not there and want to see. Marc. >X-Authentication-Warning: twin.uoregon.edu: joelja owned process doing -bs >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:56:08 -0700 (PDT) >From: Joel Jaeggli >X-Sender: >To: >Subject: archived video from ietf50 now online... >X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org > >The video archived from the multicast sources at ietf50 is now online... > >the location is: > >http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf50.html > >joelja > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Joel Jaeggli joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu >Academic User Services consult@gladstone.uoregon.edu > PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of >arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of >the right, 1843. Marc Blanchet Viagnie inc. tel: 418-656-9254 http://www.viagenie.qc.ca ---------------------------------------------------------- Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal: IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 14 19:16:47 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA15196 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14oWTs-000B3C-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:17:16 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14oWTr-000B30-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:17:15 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3EKR4198702 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:27:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20010414153040.030a5c98@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:32:50 -0400 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Marc Blanchet Subject: [idn] yap: yet another patent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, the ietf secretariat receives the following notice. The author of the patent gives us this url for the patent document: http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/searchbool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft95&s1=stepcode&OS=stepcode&RS=stepcode Marc. =================================================== http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/YD-IDN This statement was received April 13, 2001 From: liana.ydisg@juno.com Pursuant to the requirements of RFC 2026, Section 10 ("INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS"), Liana X. Ye of Y&D Information SYstems Group, Inc. ("Y&D") gives notification to the IETF Secretariat that U.S. Patent 5,410,306 of April 1995, titled CHINESE PHRASAL STEPCODE is possible covering IDN works on INTERNATIONALIZING DOMAIN NAMES. Should the implementation and practice of any part of an IETF standard relating to the above subject matter require the use of technology disclosed in the above patent, Y&D is prepared to make available, upon written request, a non-exclusive license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, based on the principle of reciprocity, consistent with established practice. Written requests for licenses may be sent to : Liana X. Ye Y&D Information Systems Group, Inc. 2607 Read Ave. Belmont, CA 94002 =================================================== Marc Blanchet Viagnie inc. tel: 418-656-9254 http://www.viagenie.qc.ca ---------------------------------------------------------- Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal: IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Wed Apr 25 07:42:20 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA11542 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sNH6-0000YA-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 04:16:00 -0700 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sNH5-0000Y4-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 04:15:59 -0700 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10730; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104251115.HAA10730@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:15:57 -0400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Domain Name Working Group of the IETF. Title : DUNCE: A proposal for a Definitely Unencumbered New Compatible [ACE] Encoding Author(s) : J. Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 24-Apr-01 This document describes a transformation method for representing non-ASCII characters in host name parts in a fashion that is completely compatible with the current DNS. It is a potential candidate for an ASCII-Compatible Encoding (ACE) for internationalized host names, as described in the comparison document from the IETF IDN Working Group. This method is based exclusively on long-established mechanisms for denoting the positions of characters in tables, but included variations for compressing that information, also based on long-established mechanisms. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010424133513.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idn-dunce-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010424133513.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 08:05:28 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA29760 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sjxs-000PIU-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:29:40 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sjxs-000PIO-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:29:40 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QBeq127363 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:40:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:32:10 -0400 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Marc Blanchet Subject: [idn] wg milestones update Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Hi, the milestones in the current charter are overdue. As said during minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose new milestones to the wg. Here is our proposal. Marc & James May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN protocol I-D(s) Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for Informational RFC Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for standard track RFC From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 10:10:32 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA04477 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sm3I-0001tL-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:43:24 -0700 Received: from h002078ca471b.ne.mediaone.net ([24.91.208.28] helo=SONY) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sm3H-0001t9-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:43:24 -0700 Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] by SONY with SMTPBeamer v3.19 ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:44:20 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> X-Sender: bill@mail.nic.nu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:44:19 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: "J. William Semich" Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc - what is the position on dealing with the Walid patent in this process? thanks, Bill At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: >Hi, > the milestones in the current charter are overdue. As said during >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose new milestones to the >wg. Here is our proposal. > >Marc & James > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN protocol I-D(s) >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for Informational RFC >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for standard track RFC > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 10:17:10 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA04821 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smG2-0002E7-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:56:34 -0700 Received: from ns1.neteka.com ([205.150.182.130] helo=neteka.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smG1-0002DZ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:56:34 -0700 Message-ID: <003801c0ce59$185356e0$1001a8c0@neteka.com> From: "Edmon" To: , "Marc Blanchet" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:59:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had the impression that a revised version of the requirements doucment will be posted for final review based on the discussion at the IETF meeting last time and the mailing list discussion prior to that. I dont think we have seen the updated version yet. > May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 10:30:57 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA05446 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smYF-0002b2-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:15:23 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smYE-0002au-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:15:22 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QEQP129363; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426101459.02fee0f8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:15:52 -0400 To: "Edmon" , From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update In-Reply-To: <003801c0ce59$185356e0$1001a8c0@neteka.com> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 09:59 2001-04-26 -0400, Edmon you wrote/vous criviez: >I had the impression that a revised version of the requirements doucment >will be posted for final review based on the discussion at the IETF meeting >last time and the mailing list discussion prior to that. I dont think we Zita sent the added text a while ago and seems to receive no complaints. So we feel now that the req documents has a rough concensus. >have seen the updated version yet. should be there real soon now... Marc. > > May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 10:37:13 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA05743 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smY3-0002ap-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:15:11 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14smY2-0002ai-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:15:10 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QEQM129354; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:26:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:11:49 -0400 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Marc Blanchet Subject: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: jseng@pobox.org.sg In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. acknowledged the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions that were answered by one of the IDNA authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence of the Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new message or statement from Walid inc. Marc & James. -----Original Message----- From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:35 PM To: dhawkins@walid.com Cc: jseng@pobox.org.sg; narten@raleigh.ibm.com; erik.nordmark@eng.sun.com; briansp@walid.com; mwelter@walid.com Subject: walid idn request Hi, from http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/WALID-IDN, you are designated as the person responsible for IP issues at Walid. At the IETF idn wg meeting held monday march 20th 2001 in Minneapolis, the wg expressed concerns about the fact that the current orientation of the working group which is documented in the a few documents (draft-ietf-idn-idna-01.txt, draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-03.txt, and others) could be covered by the US patent 6,182,148 owned by Walid. The wg strongly feels that the current IP statement sent to the IETF is not enough clear to assess the fair availability of the use of the patent if the wg documents go forward in the standard track. The wg feels that we cannot promote the current documents to the RFC level without a clearer and more open IP statement from Walid. As you know, time is the essence. We do feel an urgent need to have another statement from Walid that it either: - keeps with the current IP statement, which is unsatisfactory for the working group - have a new IP statement that the working group will find acceptable to promote the documents to the RFC level. You should understand that this request is coming from the IETF idn working group through our position of IETF idn wg co-chair, and not as individuals or as our companies representatives. Could you please have an expressed attention to this message? Could we expect some news from Walid in the coming few weeks? Regards, Marc Blanchet, co-chair of IETF idn wg James Seng, co-chair of IETF idn wg. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 10:59:29 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA06781 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sn3V-0003Md-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:47:41 -0700 Received: from dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com ([24.95.12.91] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sn3U-0003MX-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:47:40 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3QElHG16857; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:47:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104261447.f3QElHG16857@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, jseng@pobox.org.sg, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:11:49 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:47:17 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc, Where is the response by Walid to your mail of 032001? Where is the responsive query by Walid of 041301? Where is the undated responsive answers by an IDNA Author? Where is the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG Co-Chair? Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 11:19:38 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07838 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14snJC-0003iu-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:03:54 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14snJB-0003io-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:03:53 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QFEt130371; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:14:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426110106.02f88ea0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:04:29 -0400 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, jseng@pobox.org.sg, brunner@nic-naa.net In-Reply-To: <200104261447.f3QElHG16857@nic-naa.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 10:47 2001-04-26 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine you wrote/vous criviez: >Marc, > >Where is the response by Walid to your mail of 032001? >Where is the responsive query by Walid of 041301? >Where is the undated responsive answers by an IDNA Author? sorry, I wrote same day. >Where is the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG Co-Chair? I won't forward emails if I don't have the permission from the authors of the emails. If those email authors want to forward to the mailing list the emails they sent, then this is fine for me. As a result, I only forward the first email since this is the one James and I wrote! Marc. >Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 12:44:35 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA11816 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14soW3-0005Rb-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:21:15 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14soW2-0005RV-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:21:15 -0700 Received: from bbdesk.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16678 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:21:14 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:19:59 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing: In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe in the future. (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate question.) This process of re-design is done in consultation with a patent litigation attorney. I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants in the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of a patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working group specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted? This does not have to be a formal working group activity. Privately, some companies could get together, contribute the necessary funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification that they then submit to the working group. d/ At 07:11 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about >the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. acknowledged >the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. responded on April >13th 2001 with a series of questions that were answered by one of the IDNA >authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to Walid inc. that this IDNA >author's email was answering the essence of the Walid inc. questions. >Since then, we haven't received any new message or statement from Walid inc. ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 12:55:37 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA12198 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14soiW-0005jh-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:34:08 -0700 Received: from dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com ([24.95.12.91] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14soiS-0005jZ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:34:05 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3QGXfG17280; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104261633.f3QGXfG17280@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , idn@ops.ietf.org, jseng@pobox.org.sg, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:04:29 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426110106.02f88ea0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:41 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc, Please clarify who authored which communication. Please also clarify if Walid's communication(s) of 032001 and/or 041301 were personal communication(s). Please also clarify if the responsive answers by an IDNA Auther to Walid were personal communication(s). Please also clarify if the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG Co-Chair was authored by James Seng, the only co-chair of this WG other than yourself? Cheers, Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 13:02:34 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12503 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14son9-0005re-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:38:55 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14son8-0005rX-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:38:55 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QGnw131781; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:49:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:29 -0400 To: Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 09:19 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous criviez: >This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing: > >In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make >changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe in >the future. (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate question.) This >process of re-design is done in consultation with a patent litigation attorney. > >I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants in >the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of a >patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working >group specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted? > >This does not have to be a formal working group activity. this cannot be. Marc. > Privately, some companies could get together, contribute the necessary > funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification > that they then submit to the working group. > >d/ > > >At 07:11 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about >>the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. >>acknowledged the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. >>responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions that were >>answered by one of the IDNA authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to >>Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence of the >>Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new message or >>statement from Walid inc. > >---------- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 13:29:12 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA13392 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14spLt-0006iv-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:14:49 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14spLs-0006ip-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:14:48 -0700 Received: from bbdesk.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17688; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:14:43 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426100321.045e88c8@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:07:30 -0700 To: Marc Blanchet From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Marc, Your comment was so cryptic, I do not know what it means. Please clarify. If you are saying that an effort like this cannot be, why? If you are saying that an effort like this cannot take place within an IETF working group, I guess I am also curious why not. (Though the issue is secondary, since I believe the process would be easier and more efficient to handle outside the working group. If you are saying that an effort like this cannot get around the patent, I'll simply note that that is a question that is as much a matter of law as engineering. It is sometimes fascinating to see what an attorney will recommend... Given the importance of this work, it seems entirely worthwhile to be aggressive in seeking a solution that is not encumbered with proprietary intellectual property. d/ At 09:33 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >At/ 09:19 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous criviez: >>This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing: >> >>In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make >>changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe >>in the future. (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate >>question.) This process of re-design is done in consultation with a >>patent litigation attorney. >> >>I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants >>in the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of >>a patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working >>group specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted? >> >>This does not have to be a formal working group activity. > >this cannot be. > >Marc. > >> Privately, some companies could get together, contribute the necessary >> funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification >> that they then submit to the working group. > >---------- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 13:37:49 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA13729 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14spQs-0006q4-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:19:58 -0700 Received: from dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com ([24.95.12.91] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14spQr-0006pw-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:19:57 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3QHJZG17436; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104261719.f3QHJZG17436@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:29 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:35 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk > >This does not have to be a formal working group activity. > > this cannot be. Please explain your reasoning. I'm curious as to the distinction between an activity engaged in by two or three IETF participants, two of whom happen to co-chair a Working Group, and an I-D author, and a 3rd-party IPR claimant, and the process Dave described, in which some number of IETF participants engage in an activity with a 3rd-party IPR claimant. The process docuent cite(s) depricating the first, and promoting the second, or distinguishing between the first and second, will be interesting reading. Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 14:02:23 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA14644 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sptH-0007NT-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:49:19 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sptG-0007NN-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:49:18 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (modemcable245.48-201-24.que.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.48.245]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QI0L132668; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:00:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426134834.03042df8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:50:51 -0400 To: Dave Crocker From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426100321.045e88c8@dcrocker.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 10:07 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous criviez: >Marc, > >Your comment was so cryptic, I do not know what it means. Please clarify. sorry. just saying that doing patent litigation _cannot_ be a _formal_ working group activity. could be done by a group of people/companies/... but not as a wg item or activity. I was just emphazing your "does not have to be" to a "cannot be". More clear? Marc. >If you are saying that an effort like this cannot be, why? > >If you are saying that an effort like this cannot take place within an >IETF working group, I guess I am also curious why not. (Though the issue >is secondary, since I believe the process would be easier and more >efficient to handle outside the working group. > >If you are saying that an effort like this cannot get around the patent, >I'll simply note that that is a question that is as much a matter of law >as engineering. It is sometimes fascinating to see what an attorney will >recommend... > >Given the importance of this work, it seems entirely worthwhile to be >aggressive in seeking a solution that is not encumbered with proprietary >intellectual property. > >d/ > > >At 09:33 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>At/ 09:19 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous criviez: >>>This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing: >>> >>>In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make >>>changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe >>>in the future. (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate >>>question.) This process of re-design is done in consultation with a >>>patent litigation attorney. >>> >>>I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants >>>in the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of >>>a patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working >>>group specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted? >>> >>>This does not have to be a formal working group activity. >> >>this cannot be. >> >>Marc. >> >>> Privately, some companies could get together, contribute the >>> necessary funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised >>> specification that they then submit to the working group. >> >>---------- >>Dave Crocker >>Brandenburg InternetWorking >>tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 14:20:47 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA15100 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqEZ-0007eB-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:19 -0700 Received: from dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com ([24.95.12.91] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqEY-0007e5-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:11:18 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3QIAvG17732; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:10:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104261810.f3QIAvG17732@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:50:51 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426134834.03042df8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:10:57 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc, I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering activity. You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering activity. If you substitute my reading for your own, please re-evaluate your "cannot be" comment. Both Dave and I are curious why the activity he proposed (my reading, not yours) cannot be carried out by an IETF WG, and I agree with his aside that such work is better carried out by a focused group with the ability to obtain expert IPR guidence. Cheers, Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 14:21:21 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA15114 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sq0u-0007UX-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:57:12 -0700 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sq0t-0007UR-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:57:11 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.20] (ip20.proper.com [165.227.249.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04368 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:56:36 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 10:11 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote: >On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. >about the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. >acknowledged the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. >responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions that were >answered by one of the IDNA authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to >Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence >of the Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new >message or statement from Walid inc. Greetings, all. This message contains the messages that were previously sent off of the mailing list. I am sending these messages to the IDN WG list with the verbal permission from both Patrik Fltstrm and Doug Hawkins. Message 1 was sent by Patrik and I to the folks at WALID. It was a follow-up to personal discussions Patrik and I had with WALID folks at the Minneapolis IETF meeting. I wrote this message with Patrik's help and it reflected both our views. Message 2 was sent by Doug Hawkins, the Director of WALID. This is the message Marc referred to when he said "Walid inc. responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions" Message 3 was sent by Patrik. This is the message that Marc referred to when he said "that were answered by one of the IDNA authors". Although I didn't see that message when Patrik sent it (he knew I was on vacation and had no email access), I agreed with Patrik's statements after I read it. --Paul Hoffman ================================= Message 1 ================================= To: Doug Hawkins From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: WALID's patent and the IETF process Cc: Patrik Fltstrm , "Brian W. Spolarich" , Mark Welter , Marc Blanchet , James Seng Bcc: X-Attachments: Greetings. This message comes in response to a discussions we had with the technical folks from WALID during the IETF meeting last week. We write this as long-time participants in the IETF; further, Patrik writes it as a member of the IESG who is quite aware of how the IESG deals with intellectual property issues in IETF standards. During our discussions, it became clear that WALID has probably misunderstood the history of the IETF with respect to intellectual property rights (IPR) and therefore probably has too little information to make a good decision on how to deal with its rights in its US patent 6182148. We cannot tell WALID what to do, but we can certainly explain what the IETF has done historically, and explain what has been said about WALID and its patent in the weeks since it was revealed to us by one of WALID's competitors. The IETF has always strongly favored completely unencumbered technology over any technology for which there are even mild licensing restrictions. Probably the most obvious example of this is the patent on the RSA algorithm. In every case, the IETF refused to make the RSA algorithm mandatory to implement, even when the competing algorithms such as DSA were difficult to implement for a particular protocol. In all security protocols standardized before the RSA patent expired, the IETF mandated some flavor of DSA. Although such a policy may not seem "fair" to IPR owners, it has worked extremely well over the past 15 years. This is shown both by the growth of the Internet and by the near-complete withering of networks designed by organizations with weaker stances on IPR. Many large and small companies have contributed their IPR to the IETF standardization effort so that the best protocols can be standardized. The WALID patent does not exist in a vacuum. The IDN Working Group has options that would not infringe on the WALID patent. The fact that all of these options are worse than the one currently favored does not affect the IETF's views on the patent. As long as there is any option that is unencumbered, a protocol that would infringe on the WALID patent will probably not be considered unless WALID signs an IPR statement giving full, free, and unencumbered access to the technology. This would involve a significant change to the WALID IPR statement on file with the IETF Secretariat. For a Working Group in the IETF to move forward with a protocol involves getting the consensus of the Working Group, and any protocol that would involve Working Group members paying money (or even having to register with one of their competitors) is very unlikely to get the needed consensus. Nothing in the IETF process prohibits a Working Group from getting consensus around moving a solution with IPR statement like the current one from WALID forward; it is simply very unlikely if there are other options that don't have IPR issues. When evaluating whether to change the WALID IPR statement, please be sure to look at the negative aspects of not changing it, or not changing it sufficiently. If WALID does not make the IPR fully and freely available, there is little chance that the IETF will chose a technology that infringes on the patent, and will instead choose a different technology. This leaves WALID with a pretty much useless patent, since the IDN community will go with the IETF standard. Worse for WALID, because the other technologies are less desirable than the one that uses the WALID patent, there will be lots of loud complaints about WALID for quite some time. Previous patent issues in the IETF usually have been identified as "the RSA mess" or "the Entrust mess"; having the problems in a non-ACE IDN solution being called "the WALID mess" will certainly not do WALID any good, particularly if the patent becomes useless. Articles about "the WALID mess" in the computer trade press and the business press might have a very negative financial effect on the company. The solution to this problem is simple: create a good IPR statement for the patent. For example, Stanford's license for SRP authentication is quite simple, and is one of the main reasons this standard was allowed to move forward (see ). This could be used as a template for a WALID statement. Note that it is not clear how much WALID would have to give up to make the IETF happy; that won't be known until any standard has gone through the IESG. A license that is enough for the IDN Working Group might not be enough for the IESG, or vice versa. Thus, in order to assure that the Working Group uses the WALID patent (and therefore prevents this from becoming "the WALID mess"), WALID must be as generous as possible with the patent. The upside of this will certainly be good will to WALID. Although everyone is now very angry with WALID, it is likely that it will dissipate almost immediately after the problem is resolved. This quick turnaround has happened consistently with other companies who have issued good IPR licenses to the IETF. At that point, WALID will certainly be remembered as a significant name in the IDN space, and earlier bad feelings will be forgotten. If there is anything either of us can do to help you further with your decision, please let us know. Paul E. Hoffman Patrik Fltstrm ================================= Message 2 ================================= From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" To: , Cc: , , , Subject: RE: walid idn request Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:36:36 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Gentlemen: I am writing in response to Marc Blanchets and James Sengs e-mail of March 20, 2001, and Paul Hoffmans and Patrik Faltstroms e-mail of March 25, 2001, concerning WALIDs U.S. patent number 6,182,148. Since receiving these e-mail messages, we have been reviewing our Intellectual Property Rights notice, trying to address the concerns expressed in those e-mails and seeking to balance the rights of all Internet users and WALID, Inc. To that end, we offer the following questions and ask that you (the participants who have communicated directly with us) respond in a manner that will foster a resolution to this matter. In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent applications, is the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALIDs technology are not or will not be encumbered by patents? Indeed, various of our competitors who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES; http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General; http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII; http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent applications now made publicly available (http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method described in the WALID patent. Will the IETF take all IPR rights into account in considering all of the possible recommendations? As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when compared to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these alternative approaches meet the goal of technical excellence set out in RFC2026 section 1.2? Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all Internet users will be achieved by adoption of the best technical solution? Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we agree that adoption of an alternative approach will delay implementation of a standard by months at the least and will hurt Internet users. How would the adoption of a non ACE-based solution serve the interests of the Internet community? RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with respect to intellectual property issues is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others; While we understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom state, the IETF has always strongly favored completely unencumbered technology over any technology for which there are even mild licensing restrictions, would adherence to that principle in this instance be in the best interests of the Internet community, particularly in light of our agreement regarding the technical inferiority of the alternative methods? Furthermore, WALIDs IPR notice is consistent with many IPR notices that have been submitted to the IETF, including IPR notices that (we understand) include mild licensing restrictions and still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is WALIDs situation any different? Particularly in that WALID is already making its own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end users on its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisigns website http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client? We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and industry. Sincerely, J. Douglas Hawkins WALID, Inc. ================================= Message 3 ================================= Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:45:48 +0200 From: Patrik Fltstrm To: "J. Douglas Hawkins" , marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca, jseng@pobox.org.sg cc: cmoss@walid.com, wtout@walid.com, phoffman@imc.org Subject: RE: walid idn request X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0a4 (Mac OS X) --On 01-04-13 13.36 -0400 "J. Douglas Hawkins" wrote: > In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent >applications, is > the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALID?s technology are > not or will not be encumbered by patents? No. Definitly not. And, as you see in 2026, only individuals in the wg can make up their mind what they think. The wg itself, and IETF procedures, makes it possible to accept solutions which require licensing. The procedures say that not only is interoperability tests with multiple implementations needed, but also multiple licenses. But, individuals in a wg can make up their mind thinking that a proposed solution for success (note that Full Standard Status require "wide deployment, and that the solution is generally a good thing") need a specific kind of licensing. In this specific case, individuals have contacted you at Walid saying that we belive that the IPR statement Walid has posted is too strong for a solution regarding IDN. My personal take is that _any_ solution for IDN must have IPR statements from companies which might have impact on the solution which makes it possible for _any_ person or company to write software and publish it (as open source, as a commercial product, or part of such a solution) without paying anyone anything, and without even requiring an explicit license. So far, I have read the statements from some of the companies, and yes, I am worried about many of them. At this point in time, Walid is the one which have a patent which at least to me as amateur on patent issues have some claims which have impact on the current solution which this wg is looking at at the moment. I have not said that I belive that other solutions which might be possible will not rise the same kind of concerns from me. > Indeed, various of our > competitors who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs > (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES; > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General; > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII; > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent > applications now made publicly available > (http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe > that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method > described in the WALID patent. Will the IETF take all IPR rights into > account in considering all of the possible recommendations? Not IETF. But individuals. You have to differ between those two things. IETF (and IESG for that matters) do _not_ take any position. Whether some IPR statements are ok or not is a question which individuals in the wg should make up their mind about while reaching consensus around a solution. > As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other > alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when > compared to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these > alternative approaches meet the goal of ?technical excellence? set out in > RFC2026 section 1.2? At the same time we have to come up with solutions which will be widely deployed. > Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all > Internet users will be achieved by adoption of the best technical > solution? Not completely correct. It must also be implementable and usable. Having a solution which is not usable is to no use for the Internet community regardless of what technical excellence the proposal is. And, take into account the question we also have in this wg in parallel which is the question which John Klensin have been rising all along, and that is whether an IDN solution is really going to work if it is based on a DNS solution which requires exact matches compared with a dictionary solution which can handle approximate matching and more input to the query than just the query string itself. So, if not going with an ACE solution, I might personally as individual very easy change to be standing on the side of John Klensin asking for the IDN wg to compare the IDNA and other solutions with the requirements document and simply declare that that is not possible with DNS, close the wg, go home, and create the directory layer which is really needed (regardless). > Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we > agree that adoption of an alternative approach will delay implementation > of a standard by months at the least and will hurt Internet users. How > would the adoption of a non ACE-based solution serve the interests of the > Internet community? Any solution which is possible to implement might be better than one which is not possible to implement for various reasons, and licensing being one of them. > RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with > respect to intellectual property issues is ?to benefit the Internet > community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights > of others;? While we understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik > Faltstrom state, the IETF ?has always strongly favored completely > unencumbered technology over any technology for which there are even mild > licensing restrictions,? would adherence to that principle in this > instance be in the best interests of the Internet community, particularly > in light of our agreement regarding the technical inferiority of the > alternative methods? Furthermore, WALID?s IPR notice is consistent with > many IPR notices that have been submitted to the IETF, including IPR > notices that (we understand) include ?mild licensing restrictions? and > still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is WALID?s > situation any different? Note what I wrote above regarding the view of individuals in the IDN wg, and what the IETF procedures are. My view is that any solution for IDN which have to be implemented in any software which uses DNS, which is every software using the Internet, have to be surrounded with IPR statements which leaves it to anyone to implement the RFC exactly as stated in the RFC (i.e. I am not asking someone to give away IPR rights to a patent, only enough so an RFC can be implemented). > Particularly in that WALID is already making its > own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end users on > its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisign?s website > http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client? Software has nothing to do with implementation of an RFC. If Walid gives away the client code to end users, and have the view that people whould be able to implement the IDNA solution which some claims in the Walid patent covers, why not change the IPR statement to be something like: "In the case that the IDN wg produces RFC's which have parts which are covered by claims in the Walid patents, we hereby give the rights to anyone to implement those RFC without requirements for any extra licenses or fees. We don't give the rights to implement Walid patent claims in any other solutions than what is described in the RFC's." My take is that Walid by doing something like this will (a) show that they play the game in the IETF as a very good citizen (b) will (is already) well-known for the ACE solutions and software. I.e. if you (as I belive you think) you have a good implementation and know what you are doing, don't you think you still will have at least as much work to do if you let people implement the RFC without any extra license as if you require one? What do you think people will think about Walid if they implement the RFC, and you start chasing people? Will you hunt Linus Torvald if the IDNA solution is included in Linux? If you do, what do you think "Network World" will write about Walid in that case? If you don't chase people down (including Linus), what is your patent worth? This is a scenario which I as individual do not want. > We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that > together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and > industry. paf From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 14:55:37 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA15944 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqgP-0008Bu-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:40:05 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqgO-0008Bj-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:40:04 -0700 Received: from bbdesk.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19205; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:39:59 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426112718.01dad650@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:32:28 -0700 To: Marc Blanchet From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426134834.03042df8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426100321.045e88c8@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 10:50 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >sorry. just saying that doing patent litigation _cannot_ be a _formal_ >working group activity. could be done by a group of people/companies/... >but not as a wg item or activity. I was just emphazing your "does not >have to be" to a "cannot be". ahh. MY turn to apologize. I am not suggesting we enter into litigation. Rather I am suggesting that a patent litigation attorney be used to advise on ways to design around the patent... Anyhow, to repeat, I think it would be far better to pursue this as a private group. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 15:14:54 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA16580 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqpY-0008KE-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:49:32 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqpX-0008K7-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:49:31 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (classic.viagenie.qc.ca [206.123.31.136]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QJ0P133398; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:00:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426144534.02d9a6e0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:49:51 -0400 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net In-Reply-To: <200104261810.f3QIAvG17732@nic-naa.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 14:10 2001-04-26 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine you wrote/vous criviez: >Marc, > >I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering >activity. yeap. >You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering >activity. no. I did understand well. >If you substitute my reading for your own, please re-evaluate your >"cannot be" comment. Both Dave and I are curious why the activity he >proposed (my reading, not yours) cannot be carried out by an IETF WG, - I was not commenting on the value of the activity. i.e. it may be good or not to do it. - I was just saying that this activity, based on my limited knowledge of ietf, cannot be a working group formal activity per se. this is it. nothing else. Since the ietf, by itself, does not conduct "patent activities". (one can argue differently obviously... ;-))) - So in other words, you are free to do it, but not with an official wg hat, but as individuals. clearer? (sorry for the confusion: email is a non perfect medium to communicate, and with my short writing style and my bad english, added this "sensitive" subject. makes things not clear then confusion arises... sorry again). >and I agree with his aside that such work is better carried out by a >focused group with the ability to obtain expert IPR guidence. yes. Marc. >Cheers, >Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 15:15:24 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA16598 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqsx-0008ON-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:53:03 -0700 Received: from jazz.viagenie.qc.ca ([206.123.31.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sqsw-0008OH-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:53:02 -0700 Received: from CLASSIC.viagenie.qc.ca (classic.viagenie.qc.ca [206.123.31.136]) by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (Viagenie/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3QJ47133457; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:04:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Accept-Language: fr,en,es Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426145426.02128e50@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> X-Sender: blanchet@mail.viagenie.qc.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:55:02 -0400 To: Dave Crocker From: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010426112718.01dad650@dcrocker.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010426134834.03042df8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20010426100321.045e88c8@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426123320.02ea3bd8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20010426091318.0451f828@dcrocker.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426100148.02151eb0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> <3.0.5.32.20010426094419.02ac23d0@mail.nic.nu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At/ 11:32 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous criviez: >At 10:50 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote: >>sorry. just saying that doing patent litigation _cannot_ be a _formal_ >>working group activity. could be done by a group of people/companies/... >>but not as a wg item or activity. I was just emphazing your "does not >>have to be" to a "cannot be". > >ahh. MY turn to apologize. > >I am not suggesting we enter into litigation. Rather I am suggesting that >a patent litigation attorney be used to advise on ways to design around >the patent... > >Anyhow, to repeat, I think it would be far better to pursue this as a >private group. strong agreement. Marc. >d/ > > >---------- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 15:25:41 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA16945 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sr7w-0008pD-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:08:32 -0700 Received: from dt0b4n5b.maine.rr.com ([24.95.12.91] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sr7v-0008p3-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:08:31 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.maine.rr.com [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3QJ8AG18021; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104261908.f3QJ8AG18021@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , Dave Crocker , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:49:51 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426144534.02d9a6e0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:08:10 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc, > >I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering > >activity. > > yeap. > > > >You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering > >activity. > > no. I did understand well. and > - I was just saying that this activity, based on my limited knowledge of > ietf, cannot be a working group formal activity per se. this is it. nothing > else. Since the ietf, by itself, does not conduct "patent activities". (one > can argue differently obviously... ;-))) Litigation is carried out by litigators. Patent work is carried out by patent attornies. Engineering is carried out by engineers. No process document prevents a working group from seeking guidance by any expert, in fact, by our very participant nature, a patent attorney may be a working group participant. Taking the rest of your note out of order: > - I was not commenting on the value of the activity. i.e. it may be good or > not to do it. Utility is variably determined. Necessity is process document determined. > - So in other words, you are free to do it, but not with an official wg > hat, but as individuals. As it was with the co-chairs and the I-D co-author, in their personal capacities, in the context originally described in this thread. I'm glad to see Paul's note. It is overdue, but necessary. Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:27:53 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25400 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svfY-000Fh2-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:59:32 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svfX-000Fgv-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:59:32 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (hs04193.singnet.com.sg [165.21.197.61]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B216FFC0E for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:02:33 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <027501c0ceac$d0508ad0$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:58:38 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or delay due to IPR DoS on the WG. On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this decision has to come from the WG (ie individual members), not the co-chairs. We can only gather the decision from the members to decide how to move forward. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. William Semich" To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the Walid patent in this process? > > thanks, > > Bill > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >Hi, > > the milestones in the current charter are overdue. As said during > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose new milestones to the > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > >Marc & James > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN protocol I-D(s) > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for Informational RFC > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for standard track RFC > > > > > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:29:31 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25426 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:29:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svuU-000FzY-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:14:58 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svuT-000Fyy-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:14:58 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (hs04193.singnet.com.sg [165.21.197.61]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C1F09FFC0A; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:17:58 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <02cc01c0ceae$f828aae0$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: "Marc Blanchet" , "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: "Dave Crocker" , , References: <200104261810.f3QIAvG17732@nic-naa.net> Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:14:02 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If we have a patent lawyer on the WG (ie, mailing list) and who is willing to comments and give feedback to the design, the author(s) of various drafts would definately be interested in their comments. The problem is AFAIS, we do not have one. If you know of any patent lawyer(s) who is willing to contribute their time and effort to the WG, please invite them to the WG. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" To: "Marc Blanchet" Cc: "Dave Crocker" ; ; Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. > Marc, > > I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering > activity. > > You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering > activity. > > If you substitute my reading for your own, please re-evaluate your > "cannot be" comment. Both Dave and I are curious why the activity he > proposed (my reading, not yours) cannot be carried out by an IETF WG, > and I agree with his aside that such work is better carried out by a > focused group with the ability to obtain expert IPR guidence. > > Cheers, > Eric > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:35:29 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25571 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svpe-000Fug-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:09:58 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14svpc-000FuZ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:09:57 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (hs04193.singnet.com.sg [165.21.197.61]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BCC68FFC0A; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:12:57 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <02ad01c0ceae$44c24e70$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: "Marc Blanchet" , "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" , References: <200104261633.f3QGXfG17280@nic-naa.net> Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news. Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:09:02 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, While I do not understand the relevant of this wrt to the WG process, I am going to answer it just-for-the-hack-of-it. > Please clarify who authored which communication. All communication with Walid are authored depending who wrote it. But co-chairs communications are reviewed between the co-chairs. > Please also clarify if Walid's communication(s) of 032001 and/or > 041301 were personal communication(s). Please define "personal" communication. If you mean if it is private, then the answer is "yes" altho Walid has publish some of them on their website. If you mean if it is individual email, then some are written as WG co-chairs, some are individual members. Email as clearly labeled as such. > Please also clarify if the responsive answers by an IDNA Auther to > Walid were personal communication(s). This question should be answered by Walid since the WG chairs do not know any private communication between IDA Author and Walid. > Please also clarify if the undated acknowledgement and reference by > a WG Co-Chair was authored by James Seng, the only co-chair of this > WG other than yourself? Yes. It is a one line email written by me: "Actually I think Patrick has send an email back wrt to this query and we are waiting for your response." -James Seng From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:45:12 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25689 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swAN-000GUQ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:23 -0700 Received: from web5502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.185]) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swAM-000GUK-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20010427003121.22879.qmail@web5502.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [159.226.6.169] by web5502.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:21 PDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:21 -0700 (PDT) From: wenhui zhang Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update To: James Seng/Personal , idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <027501c0ceac$d0508ad0$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk hello Where is the latest version(draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt,) requirement. thanks wenhui --- James Seng/Personal wrote: > Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or > delay due to IPR DoS > on the WG. > > On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this > decision has to come > from the WG (ie individual members), not the > co-chairs. We can only > gather the decision from the members to decide how > to move forward. > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. William Semich" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the > Walid patent in this > process? > > > > thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > >Hi, > > > the milestones in the current charter are > overdue. As said during > > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose > new milestones to the > > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > > > >Marc & James > > > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for > Informational RFC > > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN > protocol I-D(s) > > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for > Informational RFC > > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for > standard track RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:50:10 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25746 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swCD-000GYN-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:33:17 -0700 Received: from web5501.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.184]) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swCC-000GYG-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:33:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [159.226.6.169] by web5501.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:33:15 PDT Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:33:15 -0700 (PDT) From: wenhui zhang Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update To: James Seng/Personal , idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <027501c0ceac$d0508ad0$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk hello Where is the latest version(draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt,) requirement. thanks wenhui --- James Seng/Personal wrote: > Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or > delay due to IPR DoS > on the WG. > > On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this > decision has to come > from the WG (ie individual members), not the > co-chairs. We can only > gather the decision from the members to decide how > to move forward. > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. William Semich" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the > Walid patent in this > process? > > > > thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > >Hi, > > > the milestones in the current charter are > overdue. As said during > > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose > new milestones to the > > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > > > >Marc & James > > > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for > Informational RFC > > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN > protocol I-D(s) > > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for > Informational RFC > > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for > standard track RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 20:55:02 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA25793 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swFi-000GeU-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:36:54 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14swFg-000GeO-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:36:53 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (hs04193.singnet.com.sg [165.21.197.61]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 57FA2FFC0A; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:39:49 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: "wenhui zhang" , References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:35:51 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "wenhui zhang" To: "James Seng/Personal" ; Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > hello > > Where is the latest > version(draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt,) > requirement. > > thanks > > wenhui > > --- James Seng/Personal wrote: > > Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or > > delay due to IPR DoS > > on the WG. > > > > On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this > > decision has to come > > from the WG (ie individual members), not the > > co-chairs. We can only > > gather the decision from the members to decide how > > to move forward. > > > > -James Seng > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "J. William Semich" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM > > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > > > > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the > > Walid patent in this > > process? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > the milestones in the current charter are > > overdue. As said during > > > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose > > new milestones to the > > > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > > > > > >Marc & James > > > > > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for > > Informational RFC > > > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > > > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > > > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > > > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > > > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN > > protocol I-D(s) > > > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > > > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for > > Informational RFC > > > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for > > standard track RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 22:13:50 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA28068 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sxTU-000Ij4-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:55:12 -0700 Received: from [159.226.6.42] (helo=pier.cnnic.net.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sxTT-000Iiv-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:55:11 -0700 Received: from deng ([159.226.7.68]) by pier.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA4336; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:56:45 +0800 Message-ID: <000501c0cebc$590d6f00$4407e29f@cnnic.net.cn> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?B?tcvP6A==?= From: deng@pier.cnnic.net.cn (deng) To: "James Seng/Personal" , References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> <041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:49:50 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by ietf.org id WAA28068 Excuse me. I can't find requirement-05 using the URL you provided now. From www.i-d-n.net and http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idn-charter.html and http://search.ietf.org/search/brokers/internet-drafts/query.html , I just found the requirements-04. Maybe my problem and bored you. Where is the requirement-05? Deng xiang ----- Original Message ----- From: James Seng/Personal To: wenhui zhang ; Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D > directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "wenhui zhang" > To: "James Seng/Personal" ; > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:33 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > hello > > > > Where is the latest > > version(draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt,) > > requirement. > > > > thanks > > > > wenhui > > > > --- James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or > > > delay due to IPR DoS > > > on the WG. > > > > > > On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this > > > decision has to come > > > from the WG (ie individual members), not the > > > co-chairs. We can only > > > gather the decision from the members to decide how > > > to move forward. > > > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "J. William Semich" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM > > > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > > > > > > > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the > > > Walid patent in this > > > process? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > the milestones in the current charter are > > > overdue. As said during > > > > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose > > > new milestones to the > > > > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > > > > > > > >Marc & James > > > > > > > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for > > > Informational RFC > > > > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > > > > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > > > > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > > > > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > > > > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN > > > protocol I-D(s) > > > > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > > > > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for > > > Informational RFC > > > > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for > > > standard track RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Thu Apr 26 22:17:07 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA28091 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sxW4-000ImW-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:57:52 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14sxW3-000ImQ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:57:51 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (hs04193.singnet.com.sg [165.21.197.61]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AE829FFC0F; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:00:52 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <066401c0cebd$57562ca0$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: "=?iso-8859-1?B?tcvP6A==?=" , References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> <041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> <000501c0cebc$590d6f00$4407e29f@cnnic.net.cn> Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:56:56 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I will send it to you in private mail. I presume it is not publish yet. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "deng" To: "James Seng/Personal" ; Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > Excuse me. I can't find requirement-05 using the URL you provided now. > From www.i-d-n.net and http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idn-charter.html and > http://search.ietf.org/search/brokers/internet-drafts/query.html , I just found the requirements-04. > Maybe my problem and bored you. Where is the requirement-05? > > Deng xiang > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James Seng/Personal > To: wenhui zhang ; > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:35 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D > > directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > > > > -James Seng > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "wenhui zhang" > > To: "James Seng/Personal" ; > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:33 AM > > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > > > > hello > > > > > > Where is the latest > > > version(draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt,) > > > requirement. > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > wenhui > > > > > > --- James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > > Read RFC2026. The WG process should not be stop or > > > > delay due to IPR DoS > > > > on the WG. > > > > > > > > On the position on dealing with Walid patent, this > > > > decision has to come > > > > from the WG (ie individual members), not the > > > > co-chairs. We can only > > > > gather the decision from the members to decide how > > > > to move forward. > > > > > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "J. William Semich" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc - what is the position on dealing with the > > > > Walid patent in this > > > > process? > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > At 07:32 AM 4/26/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > the milestones in the current charter are > > > > overdue. As said during > > > > > >minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose > > > > new milestones to the > > > > > >wg. Here is our proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > >Marc & James > > > > > > > > > > > >May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for > > > > Informational RFC > > > > > >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol > > > > > >May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D > > > > > >Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D > > > > > >Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s) > > > > > >Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN > > > > protocol I-D(s) > > > > > >Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s) > > > > > >Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for > > > > Informational RFC > > > > > >Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for > > > > standard track RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 00:55:53 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA26637 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tMN6-0008jk-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:30:16 -0700 Received: from [203.126.116.228] (helo=mail.i-dns.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tMN5-0008iy-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:30:16 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (58echo172.singnet.com.sg [165.21.220.2]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C2C3FFC0A; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:58:41 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <018f01c0cf96$f9f215d0$0201000a@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: "J. Douglas Hawkins" , "Marc Blanchet" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:54:48 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Douglas, 1. It bothers me a lot that you keep sending our private email to you to public. Not that we have anything to hide here because all our correspondence with you have been discussed with our advisors and ADs before sending to you *but* it is a courtesy to ask for permission. The standing (c) on email belongs by default to the author, in this case, Marc Blanchet. 2. The telechat we request is to clearly the IETF process on IPR. From the questions you posted, it is apparent you have some misunderstanding on RFC 2026. 3. From this reply, I am not sure if this is a "Yes" or "No" answer to the telechat request. Care to confirm it? -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" To: "Marc Blanchet" ; Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:29 AM Subject: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement > > Gentlemen: > > We have received your messages of April 26, one to the WG and the other from > the WG co-chairs to us suggesting a conference call. In view of the > importance of the matter, we submit this response to clarify the status of > our considerations. > > We are seriously considering the WG's concerns and suggestions with respect > to our IPR statement, although our statement was virtually identical to many > other IPR statements that have been posted on the IETF site, including > statements submitted by companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Lucent, > Fujitsu, Cisco, EMC and many others including some of our competitors. > > We are aware of and sensitive to the IETF's considerations, including the > potential impediment to the standards-setting process that may be presented > by such statements and IPR claims in general. > > WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will enable > the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the best > available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to act > responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are therefore > seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of all > parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the > Internet community. > > As we continue to work toward a solution, we are mindful that some of the > issues involved, principally certain legal and policy considerations, may go > beyond the IETF's technical standards-setting function. Consequently, we > require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through the > alternatives and identify an optimum solution. > > Regards, > J. Douglas Hawkins > WALID, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:14 PM > To: dhawkins@walid.com > Cc: jseng@pobox.org.sg > Subject: idn wg > > > On March 20th, the ietf idn wg co-chairs sent you a request for some > possible new IP statement from Walid inc. regarding the 6,182,148 patent. > On April 13th, you responded by a series of questions that were answered on > the same day by one of the IDNA author. In order to help the process, would > a conference call help Walid inc. to understand the IETF process? > > Marc & James, co-chairs of the idn wg. > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 02:45:53 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA11058 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tOEJ-000BTK-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:29:19 -0700 Received: from ibd.ar.com ([63.194.205.75]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tOEI-000BTE-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:29:19 -0700 Received: from loki (wessorh@loki.ar.com [10.10.10.88]) by ibd.ar.com (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id WAA14852; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:33:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson To: James Seng/Personal cc: "J. Douglas Hawkins" , Marc Blanchet , Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement In-Reply-To: <018f01c0cf96$f9f215d0$0201000a@jamessonyvaio> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk all: [especially Walid] ok, I'm tired of this game! I am starting to think that this idn thing is bad, and our current solution (IDNA) is a broken attempt. I am starting to think we need a new approach that not only is COMPLETELY unencumbered, but works in all the cases we have discussed. I am tired and disgusted with how some of the members of this group are acting and I am seriously considering that we bring this group to a FULL STOP, reevaluate, and decide if this work should continue. anyone else with me? -rick (an IDNA Design Team Member) On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, James Seng/Personal wrote: > Douglas, > > 1. It bothers me a lot that you keep sending our private email > to you to public. Not that we have anything to hide here > because all our correspondence with you have been discussed > with our advisors and ADs before sending to you *but* it is > a courtesy to ask for permission. > > The standing (c) on email belongs by default to the author, > in this case, Marc Blanchet. > > 2. The telechat we request is to clearly the IETF process on IPR. > From the questions you posted, it is apparent you have some > misunderstanding on RFC 2026. > > 3. From this reply, I am not sure if this is a "Yes" or "No" > answer to the telechat request. Care to confirm it? > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" > To: "Marc Blanchet" ; > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:29 AM > Subject: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement > > > > > > Gentlemen: > > > > We have received your messages of April 26, one to the WG and the > other from > > the WG co-chairs to us suggesting a conference call. In view of the > > importance of the matter, we submit this response to clarify the > status of > > our considerations. > > > > We are seriously considering the WG's concerns and suggestions with > respect > > to our IPR statement, although our statement was virtually identical > to many > > other IPR statements that have been posted on the IETF site, including > > statements submitted by companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, > Lucent, > > Fujitsu, Cisco, EMC and many others including some of our competitors. > > > > We are aware of and sensitive to the IETF's considerations, including > the > > potential impediment to the standards-setting process that may be > presented > > by such statements and IPR claims in general. > > > > WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will > enable > > the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the > best > > available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty > to act > > responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are > therefore > > seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests > of all > > parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the > > Internet community. > > > > As we continue to work toward a solution, we are mindful that some of > the > > issues involved, principally certain legal and policy considerations, > may go > > beyond the IETF's technical standards-setting function. Consequently, > we > > require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through > the > > alternatives and identify an optimum solution. > > > > Regards, > > J. Douglas Hawkins > > WALID, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:14 PM > > To: dhawkins@walid.com > > Cc: jseng@pobox.org.sg > > Subject: idn wg > > > > > > On March 20th, the ietf idn wg co-chairs sent you a request for some > > possible new IP statement from Walid inc. regarding the 6,182,148 > patent. > > On April 13th, you responded by a series of questions that were > answered on > > the same day by one of the IDNA author. In order to help the process, > would > > a conference call help Walid inc. to understand the IETF process? > > > > Marc & James, co-chairs of the idn wg. > > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 03:16:19 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA11368 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 03:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tOje-000CXZ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:01:42 -0700 From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" To: "Marc Blanchet" , Cc: Subject: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Message-Id: Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:01:42 -0700 Gentlemen: We have received your messages of April 26, one to the WG and the other from the WG co-chairs to us suggesting a conference call. In view of the importance of the matter, we submit this response to clarify the status of our considerations. We are seriously considering the WG's concerns and suggestions with respect to our IPR statement, although our statement was virtually identical to many other IPR statements that have been posted on the IETF site, including statements submitted by companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Lucent, Fujitsu, Cisco, EMC and many others including some of our competitors. We are aware of and sensitive to the IETF's considerations, including the potential impediment to the standards-setting process that may be presented by such statements and IPR claims in general. WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will enable the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the best available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to act responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are therefore seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of all parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the Internet community. As we continue to work toward a solution, we are mindful that some of the issues involved, principally certain legal and policy considerations, may go beyond the IETF's technical standards-setting function. Consequently, we require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through the alternatives and identify an optimum solution. Regards, J. Douglas Hawkins WALID, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:14 PM To: dhawkins@walid.com Cc: jseng@pobox.org.sg Subject: idn wg On March 20th, the ietf idn wg co-chairs sent you a request for some possible new IP statement from Walid inc. regarding the 6,182,148 patent. On April 13th, you responded by a series of questions that were answered on the same day by one of the IDNA author. In order to help the process, would a conference call help Walid inc. to understand the IETF process? Marc & James, co-chairs of the idn wg. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 05:01:55 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA11922 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 05:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tQHO-000G7Y-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:40:38 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tQHN-000G7S-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:40:37 -0700 Received: from dhc-th.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18532 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:40:36 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010428013720.03010020@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:43:19 -0700 To: From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 12:01 AM 4/28/2001, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote: >WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will enable >the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the best >available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to act >responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are therefore >seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of all >parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the >Internet community. 1. Walid is taking rather a long time to resolve this matter, in spite of the periodic public statements about its intentions. Walid should have had a clear and constructive proposal at the last IETF meeting, but did not. We are now some time down the path and are hearing more promises of intent, but not seeing anything concrete. 2. The above paragraph from Walid makes clear that Walid seeks to profit from license fees. Whether they are equitably applied, or not, is irrelevant. "...responsibility to ... shareholders" is not language used for a defensive patent. It is used for the bottom line. 3. The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it believes there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative engineering path around the patent. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 11:29:28 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA14683 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tWJy-0000ET-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:42 -0700 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tWJy-0000EN-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:42 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.20] (ip20.proper.com [165.227.249.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00772 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:27 -0700 To: From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 7:32 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote: >May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol At 12:01 AM -0700 4/28/01, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote: > Consequently, >we >require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through >the >alternatives and identify an optimum solution. It is unreasonable for a company like WALID to try to stop the WG process because the company says it need months to come to an internal decision about how best to use its own IPR. The WG should decide before Tuesday what it wants to do about the protocol given WALID's previous actions, inactions, and this current statement. At 1:43 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote: >3. The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it >believes there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative >engineering path around the patent. There is a third option that many people have discussed in the past few months: go with IDNA and assume that the WALID patent will be invalidated, at least on the parts that affect IDNA. There are two threads here: a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually affect IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be rejected by the courts. b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the patent itself. Choosing either side of this third option is a risk whose outcome is based on the US legal system, which is notoriously hard to predict (even harder to predict than the IETF!). The WG might choose to take this risk. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 11:53:41 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA14814 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tWmT-000185-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:37:09 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tWmS-00017d-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:37:08 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3SFaEc06852; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:36:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104281536.f3SFaEc06852@nic-naa.net> To: Paul Hoffman / IMC cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:27 PDT." Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:36:14 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Paul, While I don't disagree (or agree) with any proposed course of action (yet), I missed the controlling issue which requires a working group process event, e.g., a decision, on or before a date, e.g., Tuesday. Could you expand on your comment? Here it is for clarity: > The WG should decide before Tuesday what it wants to do about the > protocol given WALID's previous actions, inactions, and this current > statement. Cheers, Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 12:06:09 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA14908 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tX5l-0001kG-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:57:05 -0700 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tX5l-0001k6-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:57:05 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.20] (ip20.proper.com [165.227.249.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08684 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104281536.f3SFaEc06852@nic-naa.net> References: <200104281536.f3SFaEc06852@nic-naa.net> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:56:58 -0700 To: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 11:36 AM -0400 4/28/01, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >While I don't disagree (or agree) with any proposed course of action >(yet), I missed the controlling issue which requires a working group >process event, e.g., a decision, on or before a date, e.g., Tuesday. We need a deadline to decide how the WG is going to move forwards. WALID has had plenty of time to consider its options. At the Minneapolis meeting, folks from WALID agreed to dates that seemed reasonable to all, but then missed them without comment. In WALID's latest letter, they say the require more time, but do not say why, nor do they say why they missed the previously-agreed to deadlines, nor do they say what value the WG would get from giving them more time. Without some information about why WALID needs more time, I think the WG should go ahead on its schedule. If the WG decides not to go with IDNA because of the WALID patent and their claims about it, the WG needs time to think about which alternative it wants to persue, if any. Letting WALID control that debate seems silly. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 12:40:18 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA15094 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tXal-0002fC-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:29:07 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tXak-0002er-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:29:06 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3SGSSc07028; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:28:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104281628.f3SGSSc07028@nic-naa.net> To: Paul Hoffman / IMC cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:56:58 PDT." Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:28:28 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Paul, Please don't take this the wrong way, but your impatience (or mine) are not the controlling issue which requires a working group process event to remedy. Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 13:22:28 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA15491 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tYDj-0003jp-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:09:23 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tYDi-0003jj-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:09:22 -0700 Received: from bbdesk.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24017 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:09:21 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010428094316.03881d10@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:04:54 -0700 To: From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 08:07 AM 4/28/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually affect >IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be rejected by the courts. > >b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be >overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the patent itself. The idealist in me thoroughly supports such a line of thinking and choice. The pragmatist in me has now had a couple of years doing some expert witness work, responding to infringement suits for patents that I feel were very, very poor. The pragmatist learned that a minimal defense effort costs US$1-2M, and takes 1-2 years, and has highly unpredictable outcomes. For EACH defendant. I have asked some patent attorneys about having a group of companies band together and was told that that never works. The participants ultimately individually choose short-term individual self-interest and the force of an organized group is lost. I do not know enough about patent processes to know what it takes to get the US Patent Office to overturn an issued patent, but am under the impression it is nearly impossible. The presence of a patent confuses the market place. A path which relies on "disarming" the patent is sure to be very expensive and very slow. That will ensure long-term confusion in the market place. A builder of products is not going to want to build a product that has such confusing intellectual property encumbrances. All of this makes for exactly the WRONG circumstance, especially given the urgency for an operational IDNS solution. I believe that the intention behind patenting is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Serious effort that produces truly creative and useful technologies should accrue special rights to the inventor. However, the US patent process is thoroughly screwed up, both as a core concept and as a procedure. The core concept is that the US patent office is competent to "validate" claims of creativity and utility. The procedure is that they do the validation badly. However this situation is not going to change anytime soon, so we need to work within the current reality. That means either accepting a specification that is encumbered by the Walid patent, or finding a way around it. The IETF has a reasonable base of experience with companies that take a truly constructive approach towards working with the IETF process. We have enough experience to be able to tell when a situation is NOT developing in a truly constructive fashion. In my opinion we are, unfortunately, in such a non-constructive situation, and my guess is that it will improve. Hence: If there is any practical choice that avoid the Walid patent, we should embrace it. Quickly and strongly. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 22:48:21 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA20802 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tgud-000Je0-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 19:26:15 -0700 Received: from [159.226.6.42] (helo=pier.cnnic.net.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tgub-000Jdm-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 19:26:13 -0700 Received: from cnnic.net.cn ([159.226.6.151]) by pier.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA27794 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:27:46 +0800 Message-ID: <3AEB7BAC.C19E7880@cnnic.net.cn> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:25:48 +0800 From: sun@pier.cnnic.net.cn (Sun Guonian) Reply-To: sun@cnnic.net.cn X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> <041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id WAA20802 ============================== IETF IDN Working Group Editors Zita Wenzel, James Seng Internet Draft draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt 24 April 2001 Expires 24 October 2001 ... [30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to define equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or local-rule-ignorant) caches. ... ============================== I think the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence SHOULD be defined as a single rule anywhere so that we can make user use IDN, or chinese part in IDN, without confusion. James Seng/Personal wrote: > requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D > directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > > -James Seng -- ***************************************************** * China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) * * Sun Guonian No.4, S.4 Street * * Zhong Guan Cun * * Phone: 86-10-62553604 Haidian District * * Email: sun@cnnic.net.cn Beijing * * http://drop.cnnic.net.cn/~sun/ P.O.Box: 100080 * ***************************************************** * йϢ * ***************************************************** From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 23:38:27 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA21484 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14thlD-000LAo-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:20:35 -0700 Received: from m1.bezeqint.net ([192.115.106.45]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14thlB-000L91-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:20:33 -0700 Received: from qsm3 (bzq-130-118.bezeqint.net [212.179.130.118] (may be forged)) by m1.bezeqint.net (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ACF27237; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 06:19:57 +0300 (IDT) From: "Jonathan Rosenne" To: Subject: RE: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 06:17:17 +0300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3AEB7BAC.C19E7880@cnnic.net.cn> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think we should endeavor to avoid zone equivalence rules and make them all global. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-idn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf > Of Sun Guonian > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 5:26 AM > To: idn@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > ============================== > IETF IDN Working Group Editors Zita Wenzel, James Seng > Internet Draft draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > 24 April 2001 Expires 24 October 2001 > > ... > > [30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to define > equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not > limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode > normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or > traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences > MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or > local-rule-ignorant) caches. > ... > ============================== > I think the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence SHOULD be defined > as a single rule anywhere so that we can make user use IDN, or chinese > part > in IDN, without confusion. > > James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D > > directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > > > > -James Seng > > -- > ***************************************************** > * China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) * > * Sun Guonian No.4, S.4 Street * > * Zhong Guan Cun * > * Phone: 86-10-62553604 Haidian District * > * Email: sun@cnnic.net.cn Beijing * > * http://drop.cnnic.net.cn/~sun/ P.O.Box: 100080 * > ***************************************************** > * йϢ * > ***************************************************** > > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sat Apr 28 23:56:39 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA21624 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tiA5-000Lxo-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:46:17 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tiA3-000LxW-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:46:15 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3T3jYc09510; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:45:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104290345.f3T3jYc09510@nic-naa.net> To: "Jonathan Rosenne" cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Apr 2001 06:17:17 +0300." Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:45:34 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Jon, Would you care to elaborate why an operational issue (for a zone file operator) has global scope? Please be specific to _this_ operational issue. > I think we should endeavor to avoid zone equivalence rules and make them all > global. I'm curious to know the rational(s) for: ... [w]ithin a single zone, the zone manager MUST NOT be able to define equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone ... Cheers, Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 29 01:03:50 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA22007 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tjBG-000Nqs-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:51:34 -0700 Received: from [159.226.6.42] (helo=pier.cnnic.net.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tjBE-000NqV-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:51:32 -0700 Received: from deng ([159.226.7.68]) by pier.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA29384 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:53:10 +0800 Message-ID: <005401c0d067$53ab0660$4407e29f@cnnic.net.cn> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?B?tcvP6A==?= From: deng@pier.cnnic.net.cn (deng) To: References: Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:46:16 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by ietf.org id BAA22007 If zone manager has the right to define different equivalence rules ,it'll be difficult to keep consistency between different name servers. For example: if A manager define A equivalence rule( A=a ) in A-zone,at same time, B manager not define A equivalence rule in B-zone, so, a user can register AAA in B-zone,but the user just can register aaa (for AAA=aaa). Deng Xiang >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jonathan Rosenne >To: >Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:17 AM >Subject: RE: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) >I think we should endeavor to avoid zone equivalence rules and make them all >global. >Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-idn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf > Of Sun Guonian > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 5:26 AM > To: idn@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update > > > ============================== > IETF IDN Working Group Editors Zita Wenzel, James Seng > Internet Draft draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > 24 April 2001 Expires 24 October 2001 > > ... > > [30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to define > equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not > limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode > normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or > traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences > MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or > local-rule-ignorant) caches. > ... > ============================== > I think the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence SHOULD be defined > as a single rule anywhere so that we can make user use IDN, or chinese > part > in IDN, without confusion. > > James Seng/Personal wrote: > > > requirements-06 has been updated and you should find it in the I-D > > directory soon. In the meantime, -05 can be found here. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt > > > > -James Seng > > -- > ***************************************************** > * China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) * > * Sun Guonian No.4, S.4 Street * > * Zhong Guan Cun * > * Phone: 86-10-62553604 Haidian District * > * Email: sun@cnnic.net.cn Beijing * > * http://drop.cnnic.net.cn/~sun/ P.O.Box: 100080 * > ***************************************************** > * йϢ * > ***************************************************** > > > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 29 01:51:50 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA28071 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tjuc-000PLV-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:38:26 -0700 Received: from m2.bezeqint.net ([192.115.106.47]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tjua-000PK9-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:38:24 -0700 Received: from qsm3 (bzq-130-51.bezeqint.net [212.179.130.51] (may be forged)) by m2.bezeqint.net (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ABV61634; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:36:49 +0300 (IDT) From: "Jonathan Rosenne" To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: Subject: RE: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:34:09 +0300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200104290345.f3T3jYc09510@nic-naa.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, One has to decide: Either we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we cannot have it once one way and once the other. I would go for as wide as possible equivalences, but make them global. For example, take digits in Arabic. It is a widely used script, likely to be the major internationalized script in several zones using several languages. Some countries use Arabic (also known as European) digits, some countries use Indic (also known, wrongly, as Arabic) digits. It may be assumed that a certain zone would wish to define them as equivalent. If other zones do not, either because they are not aware of the issue or because they had made a conscientious decision, what would the poor end user experience when he tries to access a web site he heard of over the radio? This is not the case of an ignorant person like me trying to access a Chinese location, this is the case of a person using his own language in his own country, in the context of two equivalent representations of the same thing. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-idn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:46 AM > To: Jonathan Rosenne > Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org; brunner@nic-naa.net > Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) > > > Jon, > > Would you care to elaborate why an operational issue (for a zone file > operator) has global scope? Please be specific to _this_ operational > issue. > > > I think we should endeavor to avoid zone equivalence rules and make them all > > global. > > I'm curious to know the rational(s) for: > > ... [w]ithin a single zone, the zone manager MUST NOT be able to > define equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone ... > > Cheers, > Eric > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 29 10:30:11 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA09658 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14trsX-000E8o-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 07:08:49 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14trsV-000E8R-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 07:08:47 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3TE8Ac11734; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:08:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104291408.f3TE8Ac11734@nic-naa.net> To: "Jonathan Rosenne" cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:34:09 +0300." Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:08:10 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Jony, My first comment is that requirement 35 has been in the requirements document for several drafts. A one line expressions of preference is under motivating. My second comment is that any mechanism which allows non-degenerate scope, and for which a policy of specific consistency between two or more instances of scope, requires a mechanism to obtain consistency. The notion that "[e]ither we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we cannot have it once one way and once the other." presumes that consistency is a global, binary property. Is this consistency loose and converging or strict and atemporal? My third comment is in response to your example. Could you provide one with specific code-points and two distinct equivalence rules and restate the core issue? Incidently, since you happened to mention digits, Wabanakis in New England, Quebec, and the Canadian Maritimes define "8" as an equivalent to "ou", as the "w" character was not present in French when that writing system was adopted. There are UNICODE code points for the characters, but North American keyboards have the digit "8", which is used. So, without stepping outside of the LDH code points, the manager of a zone could create a rule that treats a 0x38 as 0x4f followed by 0x55, assuming the "8" appeared within an alpha string as the first, or as 0x6f followed by 0x75, for an in-fix character, and 0x38 if as a terminal, and, as 0x57 or 0x77, using the same first-or-infix rule. This could "suit the purpose of the zone". I'd appreciate clarification if this is or isn't an instance of the practice (depricated in your note) referred in in requirement 35. I could be lacking a clue. Finally, what do you propose as rewording of requirement 35? Eric References: U+0222 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OU U+0223 LATIN SMALL LETTER OU From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Sun Apr 29 13:07:45 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA10486 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tuXE-000JCE-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:59:00 -0700 Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14tuXD-000JC7-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:59:00 -0700 Received: from [165.227.249.20] (ip20.proper.com [165.227.249.20]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19872 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010428094316.03881d10@dcrocker.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010428094316.03881d10@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:58:52 -0700 To: From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 10:04 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 08:07 AM 4/28/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >>a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually >>affect IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be >>rejected by the courts. >> >>b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be >>overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the >>patent itself. > > >The idealist in me thoroughly supports such a line of thinking and choice. > >The pragmatist in me has now had a couple of years doing some expert >witness work, responding to infringement suits for patents that I >feel were very, very poor. Speaking as an individual, not as a document author, I fully agree with Dave's assesment. I brought up the other options to to say that they were what the WG should do, but to say what many people had been speaking about off the list. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 06:36:09 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA03984 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uAhK-0000b5-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:14:30 -0700 Received: from dokka.maxware.no ([195.139.236.69]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uAhJ-0000az-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:14:29 -0700 Received: from HALVESTR-W2K.alvestrand.no (dokka.maxware.no [195.139.236.69]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18130; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:14:19 +0200 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010430071228.03313038@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: hta@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:15:16 +0200 To: sun@cnnic.net.cn From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: traditional/simplified (Re: [idn] wg milestones update) Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3AEB7BAC.C19E7880@cnnic.net.cn> References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> <041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 10:25 29.04.2001 +0800, Sun Guonian wrote: >[30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to define >equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not >limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode >normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or >traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences >MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or >local-rule-ignorant) caches. >... >============================== >I think the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence SHOULD be defined >as a single rule anywhere so that we can make user use IDN, or chinese >part in IDN, without confusion. If it was possible to write down this equivalence rule on a single sheet of paper (without the codepoints), I would agree. Unfortunately not even the definitions of the different classes of traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence seems to fit on a single sheet of paper (the 1-n, n-1 and contextual mappings in particular). A complex specification is prone to implementation errors, especially when there are large markets (US, Western Europe) where a sloppy implementation will not be challenged by real-life usage of the functionality. From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 06:41:50 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA04085 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uAmq-0000ou-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:20:12 -0700 Received: from [159.226.6.42] (helo=pier.cnnic.net.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uAmp-0000oZ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:20:11 -0700 Received: from cnnic.net.cn ([159.226.6.151]) by pier.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA10982; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:21:39 +0800 Message-ID: <3AED3C39.CA9E5BBB@cnnic.net.cn> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:19:37 +0800 From: sun@pier.cnnic.net.cn (Sun Guonian) Reply-To: sun@cnnic.net.cn Organization: CNNIC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine CC: idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) References: <200104291408.f3TE8Ac11734@nic-naa.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4179C8D0E56763794AE15F51" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4179C8D0E56763794AE15F51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit sorry, about -05 [30] maybe I don't express my point clear. if the zone managers could define the equivalence rules respectively, users could be confusing between different zones. for chinese user, the TC-SC equivalence rule is just alike the case-folding rule. I'd like to show an example followed using the case-folding rule. under zone .COM, if manager defines upper case characters equal to lower case characters. users could access IBM' domain with ibm.com, IBm.com, ... in any case. in another hand, under zone .NET, if manager defines upper case characters DON'T equal to lower case characters. then ibm.net , IBm.net, iBM.net, ... will be eight different domains, (without considering the TLD .net, such as .NET, .Net), and, if the .NET-registry do the equivalence in their policy, they must put 8 records in their zone. if they don't, users will get the different experience between .COM and .NET . So I think the TC-SC equivalence rule SHOULD be consistent anywhere . regards, sun guonian Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > Jony, > > My first comment is that requirement 35 has been in the requirements document > for several drafts. A one line expressions of preference is under motivating. > > My second comment is that any mechanism which allows non-degenerate scope, > and for which a policy of specific consistency between two or more instances > of scope, requires a mechanism to obtain consistency. The notion that > "[e]ither we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we cannot > have it once one way and once the other." > presumes that consistency is a global, binary property. Is this consistency > loose and converging or strict and atemporal? > > My third comment is in response to your example. Could you provide one with > specific code-points and two distinct equivalence rules and restate the core > issue? > > Incidently, since you happened to mention digits, Wabanakis in New England, > Quebec, and the Canadian Maritimes define "8" as an equivalent to "ou", as > the "w" character was not present in French when that writing system was > adopted. There are UNICODE code points for the characters, but North American > keyboards have the digit "8", which is used. > > So, without stepping outside of the LDH code points, the manager of a zone > could create a rule that treats a 0x38 as 0x4f followed by 0x55, assuming > the "8" appeared within an alpha string as the first, or as 0x6f followed > by 0x75, for an in-fix character, and 0x38 if as a terminal, and, as 0x57 > or 0x77, using the same first-or-infix rule. This could "suit the purpose > of the zone". > > I'd appreciate clarification if this is or isn't an instance of the practice > (depricated in your note) referred in in requirement 35. I could be lacking > a clue. > > Finally, what do you propose as rewording of requirement 35? > > Eric > > References: > U+0222 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OU > U+0223 LATIN SMALL LETTER OU -- ***************************************************** * China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) * * Sun Guonian No.4, S.4 Street * * Zhong Guan Cun * * Phone: 86-10-62553604 Haidian District * * Email: sun@cnnic.net.cn Beijing * * http://drop.cnnic.net.cn/~sun/ P.O.Box: 100080 * ***************************************************** * йϢ * ***************************************************** --------------4179C8D0E56763794AE15F51 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="sun.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Sun Guonian Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sun.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Sun;Guonian tel;fax:+10 62559892 tel;work:+10 62619750-3016 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:CNNIC adr:;;;Beijing;;100080;China version:2.1 email;internet:sun@cnnic.net.cn fn:Sun Guonian end:vcard --------------4179C8D0E56763794AE15F51-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 07:15:44 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA05080 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBMv-000211-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:57:29 -0700 Received: from [159.226.6.42] (helo=pier.cnnic.net.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBMu-00020s-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:57:28 -0700 Received: from deng ([159.226.7.68]) by pier.cnnic.net.cn (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA11065; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:59:03 +0800 Message-ID: <004a01c0d163$9b523f40$4407e29f@cnnic.net.cn> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?B?tcvP6A==?= From: deng@pier.cnnic.net.cn (deng) To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" , Cc: References: <20010427003315.22935.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com><041201c0ceb2$05e09a00$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio> <4.3.2.7.2.20010430071228.03313038@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: traditional/simplified (Re: [idn] wg milestones update) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:52:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by ietf.org id HAA05080 ----- Original Message ----- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:15 PM Subject: traditional/simplified (Re: [idn] wg milestones update) > At 10:25 29.04.2001 +0800, Sun Guonian wrote: > >[30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to define > >equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not > >limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode > >normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or > >traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences > >MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or > >local-rule-ignorant) caches. > >... > >============================== > >I think the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence SHOULD be defined > >as a single rule anywhere so that we can make user use IDN, or chinese > >part in IDN, without confusion. > > If it was possible to write down this equivalence rule on a single sheet of > paper (without the codepoints), I would agree. > Unfortunately not even the definitions of the different classes of > traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence seems to fit on a single sheet > of paper (the 1-n, n-1 and contextual mappings in particular). We are preparing a draft about traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. > > A complex specification is prone to implementation errors, especially when > there are large markets (US, Western Europe) where a sloppy implementation > will not be challenged by real-life usage of the functionality. Agree. As a part of DNS, any functions must be precision.The largest users of Chinese domain name is in China, we must be responsible for our users. If it's unfortunate that the fact tall us that there a wall before us, we'll be responsible for work. But now ,we find a road,so we have to go along the road and maybe the light will be brilliant on the end of the road. your regards Deng Xiang From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 07:22:29 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA05193 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBVd-0002R2-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:06:29 -0700 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBVc-0002Qf-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:06:28 -0700 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04629; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104301106.HAA04629@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:06:27 -0400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internationalized Domain Name Working Group of the IETF. Title : Requirements of Internationalized Domain Names Author(s) : Z. Wenzel, J. Seng Filename : draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt Pages : 8 Date : 27-Apr-01 This document describes the requirement for encoding international characters into DNS names and records. This document is guidance for developing protocols for internationalized domain names. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010427152715.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idn-requirements-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20010427152715.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 07:31:41 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA05428 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBiK-0002wQ-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:19:36 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=A4.JCK.COM) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uBiJ-0002wK-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:19:36 -0700 Received: from r3.jck.com ("port 1208"@[209.187.148.222]) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44844) with ESMTPA id <0GCL0099MRGLRX@a4.jck.com> for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:19:33 -0400 From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: traditional/simplified (Re: [idn] wg milestones update) In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20010430071228.03313038@127.0.0.1> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand , sun@cnnic.net.cn Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <772695160.988615173@r3.jck.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Monday, April 30, 2001 07:15 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > At 10:25 29.04.2001 +0800, Sun Guonian wrote: >> [30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MUST be able to >> define equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, >> such as, but not limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII >> case folding, Unicode normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), >... > If it was possible to write down this equivalence rule on a > single sheet of paper (without the codepoints), I would agree. > Unfortunately not even the definitions of the different classes > of traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence seems to fit on a > single sheet of paper (the 1-n, n-1 and contextual mappings in > particular). > > A complex specification is prone to implementation errors, > especially when there are large markets (US, Western Europe) > where a sloppy implementation will not be challenged by > real-life usage of the functionality. Let me try a different answer, or pair of answers, without in any way disagreeing with Harald (i.e., these are two or three separate reasons for the same conclusion)... (i) Even were it technically feasbile, it it not desirable to tie interpretation rules to subdomain trees (zones are even worse). If there are not to be a single, global, set of resolution and matching rules, the rules applied should be best be those that matches the language and perceptions of the user entering the name. For the simplifie/ traditional Chinese example, this may not make any difference (I'm not educated enough to know). But for things like different interpretations of Unicode matching/ case folding, either the rules need to match the perceptions of the requesting user, or they need to be globally uniform, or the user will need, ultimately, to remember different rules for each zone that might be encountered. Or the users will be continually astonished, which is not good. (ii) User-end handling of these things is best accomplished in, or very close to, the user agent, not in DNS servers or in interception mechanisms. If I am visiting a country other than my own, I ought to be able to use the settings and resolution rules I am used to, rather than having local ones imposed on me. To take an example that does not involve Roman-based characters at all, a traveller from China to an Arabic-speaking country should be able to use Chinese rules to access Chinese sites (whether located in China or elsewhere) rather than, e.g., Arabic ones. But a user-agent approach increases the risk that, with different user agent configurations, a putative domain name that works for me and that I send to you will not be resolvable by you because your UA has a different set of translation or canonicalization rules. Unfortuately, if one believes the above, one is led, I think, to one of two conclusions: * We must accept a single, global, set of resolution rules, rather than domain or zone-specific ones. And that suggests that the right place to do conversions between simplified and traditional Chinese, or British and American English, is either by having user agents convert to a single, canonical form for each case before making a query (and registering only the canonical form in the DNS). Or we could make a "no mixing" requirement and then register both forms but not the "some of one and some of the other" variations. But I have been told by experts that a "no mixing" requirement is not practical in many cases, and must accept that. * We give up on the DNS as an environment in which to solve these problems. There are many advantages to server-based resolution of names and matching rather than forcing users (or user agents) into generating canonical forms and hoping that the canonical forms match, not least of which is that we can have some local flexibility while retaining very high recall of records the users perceive as matching. But the price is moving beyond the "lookup" mechanisms of the DNS into an environment in which UA-driven searching with imprecise matching is possible. john From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 08:08:35 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA06379 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCG5-0003ut-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:54:29 -0700 Received: from blake.i-email.net ([203.126.116.232]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCG3-0003ui-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:54:28 -0700 Received: from maynardibm (bianca.i-email.net [202.55.72.10]) by blake.i-email.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 05F84A8901; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:54:24 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <004801c0d16c$49810800$0200000a@maynardibm> From: "Maynard Kang" To: , "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: References: <200104291408.f3TE8Ac11734@nic-naa.net> <3AED3C39.CA9E5BBB@cnnic.net.cn> Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:54:17 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Guonian, > for chinese user, the TC-SC equivalence rule is just alike the case-folding rule. > I'd like to show an example followed using the case-folding rule. > > under zone .COM, if manager defines upper case characters equal to lower case > characters. users could access IBM' domain with ibm.com, IBm.com, ... in any > case. ... > So I think the TC-SC equivalence rule SHOULD be consistent anywhere . Since we're on this topic of TC-SC equivalence yet again, I'd like to point out two issues that I think we should all consider before we go further, if these have not been reiterated enough in previous postings made by more qualified individuals than myself in the past: 1) The ruleset for TC-SC equivalence is not a 1-n or n-1 mapping of abstract characters, as pointed out by Harald Alvestrand. It can be hideously complex (see draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt for details), with numerous lexical and contextual considerations. I am sure that you would know about the "头发" = "頭髮" but "发财" != "髮財" problem. 2) Case-folding is a simple canonical process, and the folding rules are the same, I believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), for most scripts which are able to be represented in ASCII (i.e. English, Swahili, Hawaiian, Malay, etc). For example, there is no debate as to whether "CAT" or "cat" or "cAt" refers to the same thing (in English), or whether "KUCHING" or "kuching" or "kUchiNG" refers to the same thing ("cat" in Malay). However, Han character canonicalization does not follow the same rules. Han characters used in Chinese, Japanese and Korean have different equivalence rules. This is also pointed out in draft-ietf-idn-cjk-01.txt. For example, "日產" = "日产" in Chinese, but "日產" != "日产" in Japanese. In both cases, the exact same code points in Unicode are used. This has been pointed out too, that since Unicode does not recognize the difference between languages, but only the difference between scripts. Hence, it will be difficult for any Unicode-based system to function on language-based equivalence rules. I do agree with you that the problem that you have pointed out is indeed a real problem and there is a need for TC-SC equivalence for locating resources on the Internet. However, it is a problem that cannot be solved by a Unicode-based DNS solution within the parameters of the IDN WG and hence this may not be the right place to address these issues. maynard From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 08:10:08 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA06489 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCJl-00040T-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:58:17 -0700 Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCJk-00040N-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:58:16 -0700 Received: from jamessonyvaio (unknown [203.126.116.227]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B2ECBFFC09; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:01:11 +0800 (SGT) Message-ID: <013601c0d16c$b77ab7c0$0201000a@jamessonyvaio> From: "James Seng/Personal" To: , "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: References: <200104291408.f3TE8Ac11734@nic-naa.net> <3AED3C39.CA9E5BBB@cnnic.net.cn> Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:57:23 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think irregardless of the whether TC-SC is possible or whether there is any merit to do it, I think that part of the discussion should be done else where, not the requirements doc. Putting design specific issues into requirements doc (especially one which is language specific) is not going to be constructive. I suggest we move the discussion of TC-SC to some other doc (primarly I am looking at Nameprep here. Dont shoot me :) so we can move on with the requirements doc. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sun Guonian" To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) > sorry, about -05 [30] maybe I don't express my point clear. > > if the zone managers could define the equivalence rules respectively, users could > be confusing between different zones. > > for chinese user, the TC-SC equivalence rule is just alike the case-folding rule. > I'd like to show an example followed using the case-folding rule. > > under zone .COM, if manager defines upper case characters equal to lower case > characters. users could access IBM' domain with ibm.com, IBm.com, ... in any > case. > > in another hand, under zone .NET, if manager defines upper case characters DON'T > equal to lower case characters. then ibm.net , IBm.net, iBM.net, ... will be > eight different domains, (without considering the TLD .net, such as .NET, .Net), > and, if the .NET-registry do the equivalence in their policy, they must put 8 > records in their zone. if they don't, users will get the different experience > between .COM and .NET . > > So I think the TC-SC equivalence rule SHOULD be consistent anywhere . > > regards, > sun guonian > > Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > > > Jony, > > > > My first comment is that requirement 35 has been in the requirements document > > for several drafts. A one line expressions of preference is under motivating. > > > > My second comment is that any mechanism which allows non-degenerate scope, > > and for which a policy of specific consistency between two or more instances > > of scope, requires a mechanism to obtain consistency. The notion that > > "[e]ither we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we cannot > > have it once one way and once the other." > > presumes that consistency is a global, binary property. Is this consistency > > loose and converging or strict and atemporal? > > > > My third comment is in response to your example. Could you provide one with > > specific code-points and two distinct equivalence rules and restate the core > > issue? > > > > Incidently, since you happened to mention digits, Wabanakis in New England, > > Quebec, and the Canadian Maritimes define "8" as an equivalent to "ou", as > > the "w" character was not present in French when that writing system was > > adopted. There are UNICODE code points for the characters, but North American > > keyboards have the digit "8", which is used. > > > > So, without stepping outside of the LDH code points, the manager of a zone > > could create a rule that treats a 0x38 as 0x4f followed by 0x55, assuming > > the "8" appeared within an alpha string as the first, or as 0x6f followed > > by 0x75, for an in-fix character, and 0x38 if as a terminal, and, as 0x57 > > or 0x77, using the same first-or-infix rule. This could "suit the purpose > > of the zone". > > > > I'd appreciate clarification if this is or isn't an instance of the practice > > (depricated in your note) referred in in requirement 35. I could be lacking > > a clue. > > > > Finally, what do you propose as rewording of requirement 35? > > > > Eric > > > > References: > > U+0222 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OU > > U+0223 LATIN SMALL LETTER OU > > -- > ***************************************************** > * China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) * > * Sun Guonian No.4, S.4 Street * > * Zhong Guan Cun * > * Phone: 86-10-62553604 Haidian District * > * Email: sun@cnnic.net.cn Beijing * > * http://drop.cnnic.net.cn/~sun/ P.O.Box: 100080 * > ***************************************************** > * йϢ * > ***************************************************** > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 08:25:00 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA06936 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCYS-0004Zn-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:13:28 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uCYR-0004Zh-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:13:27 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3UCCkc16114; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:12:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104301212.f3UCCkc16114@nic-naa.net> To: zita@isi.edu, jseng@pobox.org.sg cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: [idn] Clarification, draft-ietf-idn-requirements-0?.txt, [30] Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:12:46 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Authors, Would you do me the kindness of reminding me who proposed the current text of General Requirements, item [30]? I'd like to know what use case(s) were offered to motivate this manditory-to-implement (zone manager definition of equivalency rules) requirement. Tia, Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 09:05:13 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA08439 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uDBO-0005sf-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:53:42 -0700 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=A4.JCK.COM) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uDBO-0005sZ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:53:42 -0700 Received: from r3.jck.com ("port 1251"@[209.187.148.222]) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44844) with ESMTPA id <0GCL009BNVTGRX@a4.jck.com> for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:53:38 -0400 From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) In-reply-to: <004801c0d16c$49810800$0200000a@maynardibm> To: Maynard Kang Cc: sun@cnnic.net.cn, idn@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <778340290.988620818@r3.jck.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Monday, April 30, 2001 19:54 +0800 Maynard Kang wrote: >... > 2) Case-folding is a simple canonical process, and the folding > rules are the same, I believe (someone please correct me if I'm > wrong), for most scripts which are able to be represented in > ASCII (i.e. English, Swahili, Hawaiian, > Malay, etc). Well, nearly. As soon as one moves significantly out of the ASCII subset (not "English") used in traditional host names, little idiosyncracies show up. Some scripts have characters that don't have representations in the "other" case (the German esszet is one example), others have mapping rules related to accent or diacritical characters that differ between countries, even within a script. One of the more significant problems with the Chinese conversion/ translation is that, as I understand it, one character in traditional may map to a two or more character phrase in simplified and, in general, one cannot expect a 1:1 mapping on character count. But, while it is less common, that problem occurs in Roman-based scripts as well due to historical representation issues. For example, the character "u with umlaut" (one character) is often written as "ue" (two characters). "ae" may be a two-character sequence, or a representational form for a single-character diphthong, or a representational form for "a with umlaut". As far as I know, the second of these never matches the third, but the first can match either the second, or third, or neither depending on the underlying language (i.e., one can't tell from script alone). One may, of course, try to make these problems different by describing some of them as "case folding" and others as something else, but I'm not convinced that is helpful. So, while the scale may be different, I don't think the problems themselves are really very different. john From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 10:15:19 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA11584 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uEFf-00089T-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:02:11 -0700 Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uEFe-00089N-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:02:10 -0700 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f3UE1bc16478; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:01:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200104301401.f3UE1bc16478@nic-naa.net> To: Marc Blanchet cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [idn] wg milestones update In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:32:10 EDT." <5.1.0.14.1.20010426073005.0204c840@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:01:37 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Marc, Observations: > May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC I don't think the [30] discussion will converge and resolve to consensus in 24 hours. I do wish -06 were available _before_ being submitted, to the I-D editor, but especially to the IESG. > May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol There are 6,182,148 (Walid), and 5,410,306 (Ydisg). I don't think the rfc2026, section 10 (IPR) discussions (note the plural) are identical, or complete, and are unlikely to converge and resolve to consensii in 24 hours. Recommendations: I suggest that we move the date on the requirements draft out a week. I suggest that we task the ADs to summarize or have summarized the issues for each of the Ydsig and Walid IPR claims, solicit "proposed courses of action" for some reasonable period after the summaries are available, and conduct a straw-poll on the suggested courses of action. I haven't looked at Walid. I haven't looked at Ydisg. I haven't asked our (NeuStar) in-house legal team to start to get an opinion from any patent law firm. I'm sure that the courses of action possible are richer than a {stop,avoid,overrun} repitoire, however, I'm also sure that we (the IETF) have more experience specific to this general problem than is possessed in this, or most any limited charter working group. I don't know (yet) how to decide. The urgency isn't lost on me, I simply lack clue. I do know that "haste makes waste", and I trust that everyone in the haste camp has sufficient clue to avoid waste. Eric From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 11:29:55 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA15329 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uFGI-000AHP-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:06:54 -0700 Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com ([24.0.95.81]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uFGH-000AHI-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:06:53 -0700 Received: from c1340594a ([65.11.104.12]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010430150620.HSEK965.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c1340594a>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:06:20 -0700 Message-ID: <003d01c0d187$3b102d80$0c680b41@c1340594a> Reply-To: "Mark Davis" From: "Mark Davis" To: "John C Klensin" , "Maynard Kang" Cc: , References: <778340290.988620818@r3.jck.com> Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:07:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Case folding does have some edge cases, but is not comparable in complexity. The use of ae, oe and ue to represent , , and is not a case folding issue, any more than the use of aa to represent . In both cases, they don't represent modern usage, but instead are only used in modern writing in situations where accents are not permitted, thus serving as fallbacks. These are an issue for internationalized collation (see http://www.unicode.net/unicode/reports/tr10/), but not for domain names. The character expands to SS when capitalized (and there are some other cases in Unicode of that happening), but that is not issue with TC->SC folding. The issue with TC-SC folding is represented by cases where character X maps to character Y, but X and Y have substantially different ranges of meanings. There are certain edge where this happens with case folding: e.g., "China" could mean either the country or the pottery, while "china" could only mean the pottery. For case mappings, these are extemely rare and represent no significant barrier to comprehension. I am told that there are a substantial number of problem cases in TC->SC mappings, where meaning is conflated, and that the mapping is not just 1-n but m-n. More importantly, this issue has been batted about for a year or so now, and yet to my knowledge nobody has made a specific proposed mapping public. Such a mapping should have been presented long ago, so that it there would be enough time for detailed review and assessment by experts in the field. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" To: "Maynard Kang" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 05:53 Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) > --On Monday, April 30, 2001 19:54 +0800 Maynard Kang > wrote: > > >... > > 2) Case-folding is a simple canonical process, and the folding > > rules are the same, I believe (someone please correct me if I'm > > wrong), for most scripts which are able to be represented in > > ASCII (i.e. English, Swahili, Hawaiian, > > Malay, etc). > > Well, nearly. > > As soon as one moves significantly out of the ASCII subset (not > "English") used in traditional host names, little idiosyncracies > show up. Some scripts have characters that don't have > representations in the "other" case (the German esszet is one > example), others have mapping rules related to accent or > diacritical characters that differ between countries, even within > a script. > > One of the more significant problems with the Chinese conversion/ > translation is that, as I understand it, one character in > traditional may map to a two or more character phrase in > simplified and, in general, one cannot expect a 1:1 mapping on > character count. But, while it is less common, that problem > occurs in Roman-based scripts as well due to historical > representation issues. For example, the character "u with > umlaut" (one character) is often written as "ue" (two > characters). "ae" may be a two-character sequence, or a > representational form for a single-character diphthong, or a > representational form for "a with umlaut". As far as I know, the > second of these never matches the third, but the first can match > either the second, or third, or neither depending on the > underlying language (i.e., one can't tell from script alone). > > One may, of course, try to make these problems different by > describing some of them as "case folding" and others as something > else, but I'm not convinced that is helpful. So, while the > scale may be different, I don't think the problems themselves are > really very different. > > john > > From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 12:40:00 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA18201 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uGW9-000D3y-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:27:21 -0700 Received: from df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.8.8]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uGW9-000D3r-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:27:21 -0700 Received: from df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.33]) by df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2905); Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:28:02 -0700 Received: from 172.30.236.11 by df-virus2.platinum.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:27:12 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Received: from DINO.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.100]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2905); Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:26:06 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4698.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Thread-Index: AcDPwdw3B8bAWxKoQ8iYLlGAMUHsSQBz6uQw From: "Russ Rolfe" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2001 16:26:06.0240 (UTC) FILETIME=[4199C200:01C0D192] Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id MAA18201 Dave Crooker wrote Saturday, April 28, 2001 1:43 AM > 3. The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it believes > there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative engineering path > around the patent. Instead of waiting for Walid, should we be looking at what other alternatives exists. Do people have any thoughts on what the possible two-three major alternatives may be. I would like to hear what the members of this WG thoughts are? Respectfully, Russ Rolfe Microsoft -----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 1:43 AM To: idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement At 12:01 AM 4/28/2001, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote: >WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will enable >the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the best >available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to act >responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are therefore >seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of all >parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the >Internet community. 1. Walid is taking rather a long time to resolve this matter, in spite of the periodic public statements about its intentions. Walid should have had a clear and constructive proposal at the last IETF meeting, but did not. We are now some time down the path and are hearing more promises of intent, but not seeing anything concrete. 2. The above paragraph from Walid makes clear that Walid seeks to profit from license fees. Whether they are equitably applied, or not, is irrelevant. "...responsibility to ... shareholders" is not language used for a defensive patent. It is used for the bottom line. 3. The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it believes there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative engineering path around the patent. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 14:13:27 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA21152 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uHy2-000GAP-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:00:14 -0700 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uHy1-000GAJ-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:00:13 -0700 Received: from bbdesk.dcrocker.net (c1193160-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.0.152.112]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28753; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:00:12 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010430101932.038a4fb0@dcrocker.net> X-Sender: dhc@brandenburg.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:20:14 -0700 To: "Russ Rolfe" From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement Cc: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk At 09:26 AM 4/30/2001, Russ Rolfe wrote: >Instead of waiting for Walid, should we be looking at what other >alternatives exists. Do people have any thoughts on what the possible >two-three major alternatives may be. and I entirely concur with pursuing alternatives immediately. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464 From owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Mon Apr 30 19:17:29 2001 Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA28160 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uMWg-0000FW-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:52:18 -0700 Received: from arwen.cs.berkeley.edu ([128.32.46.192] helo=nicemice.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14uMWf-0000FP-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:52:17 -0700 Received: from amc by nicemice.net with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14uMWd-0007LK-00; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:52:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:52:15 +0000 To: idn@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update) Message-ID: <20010430225035.A25647@arwen.cs.berkeley.edu> References: <200104291408.f3TE8Ac11734@nic-naa.net> <3AED3C39.CA9E5BBB@cnnic.net.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: <3AED3C39.CA9E5BBB@cnnic.net.cn>; from sun@pier.cnnic.net.cn on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 06:19:37PM +0800 From: "Adam M. Costello" Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk Sun Guonian wrote: > for chinese user, the TC-SC equivalence rule is just alike the > case-folding rule. There are at least two differences. First, case equivalence is much simpler. It's almost always a one-to-one map, and the few exceptions (like German sharp s) disappear after you perform Unicode's "compatible decomposition" (which is a one-to-many map). As others have pointed out, the traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence is much more complex. This complexity is important because equivalence of domain names must be computable by applications, not just DNS servers. Browsers need to check domain names for equality in order to do things like color visited links and reject cookies from particular domains. The second difference is that case equivalence is intuitive. Any person who knows the letter "a" also knows that "A" and "a" are the same letter (even if you put diacritics on them, and even when they appear in words of an unknown language). I don't think this is true of traditional/simplified Chinese characters. If I'm not mistaken, many people from China cannot read many of the traditional characters, and many people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. cannot read many of the simplified characters. And as others have pointed out, the equivalence holds in Mandarin but not in Japanese (and I would guess not in Cantonese and other Chinese languages, but I don't know). AMC