From jefsey@jefsey.com Thu Feb 3 09:40:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143B63A6A50; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:40:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmTTQ5DPwGhZ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6048E3A6A3F; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from 161.240-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.240.161]:63913 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pl3DW-00075G-2T; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:43:38 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110203183113.0b2922d8@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:43:51 +0100 To: Margaret Wasserman ,Fred Baker From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <0CECF4FD-45E4-40F8-A90F-91F0317EEEEA@painless-security.com > References: <20110105061202.41DD93A6B1D@core3.amsl.com> <4CF7DC15-F670-42CF-A1E6-5C635E862F0F@cisco.com> <0A0469B5-987C-41BD-87ED-94211C8A2752@nttv6.net> <12C3785D-4072-487B-9055-8FEA7D9F189C@cisco.com> <0CECF4FD-45E4-40F8-A90F-91F0317EEEEA@painless-security.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: iucg@ietf.org, NAT66 HappyFunBall , Ron Bonica Subject: Re: [iucg] [nat66] -07 intends experimental status Re: New Version Notification for draft-mrw-nat66-06 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:40:20 -0000 At 12:27 03/02/2011, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >operational use Margaret, I think this is exactly the right point of view (I would only add "optional" to show it is not alternative to anything but "subsiderative", a word we should work on to better understand the way the existing Internet supports divesities, as the linguistic diversity support has taught us). If the proposition fits an intelligent use (IUse) of the internet, the emerging small IUse community (for exemple, there may/should be others) will select it in its "How to Intelligently Use the Internet" part of the "How to sustainly develop in the digital ecosystem" documentation hopefully to come some day. Best jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Feb 6 13:15:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91FF3A69DA for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:15:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TqYnWiGnngpA for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE423A69AE for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from 20.201-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.201.20]:50809 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PmBwk-0007Vr-Bv; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:15:02 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110205175456.05b46860@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:14:59 +0100 To: governance@lists.cpsr.org,Avri Doria , IGC From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:15:02 -0000 At 17:13 05/02/2011, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >I pretty much agree with this analysis. > >The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to >a similar place by the the last paragraph, is that even though the >Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a >resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and >communications technologies, and new technology the communications >links can be reestablished in time. > >But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note >and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that >decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who >are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the >diversification and distribution of control and governance. Avri, Louis, Old techniques certainly offer parts of the solution that we need, but they did not apply to local and international free (cost and control) coverage. They do not offer routing solutions in asynchronous mode. The typical situation is: no more Internet bandwidth, polluted radio and WiMAX, possible but degraded Wi-Fi, and costly and possibly taped or interrupted phone lines. There are also absolute needs for encryption (a way to promote IPsec?) and FEC (Forwarding Error Correction). This could be investigated through current IETF propositions (Fred Baker, Margaret Wasserman) for NAT66 and, therefore, the dissemination of the chips at low cost. Possibly through a smart plug sold as a security: how to contact your ISP when the connection does not work. Other problems are the concatenation of people's systems into a varying network (I can access my neighbor or someone in Malaysia, etc. like in short wave networks), addressing (location + ID?), transmission control and ACKs, and routing. Naming is OK. Actually, after centralized, decentralized, and distributed full duplex networks we face a quantified intricate network model. Interesting. Obviously in that kind of system we will not obtain end to end high speed! However, Twitter has shown what can be achieved with 140 bytes. Another issue is certainly the classification of information to help people figure out a situation, and to chain texts. Coded and semantic compression are also something needed to transfer language independent situation reports (an example that we all know is: "404") and pictures. This is where, architecturally, my IETF campaigns can pay off in ensuring good exploration coherence. The current status of the world digital system that is emerging from 40 years of experience, partly diluted by merchants as Louis and IAB say, has two identified and possibly competing sequences that we should try to make complementary by any means: 1. The one that we know and that we do not want, what Louis calls a regression : the proprietary or monopolistic, and now politically enforced, merchants/server/client sequence. We are warned: the Rojadirecta.org case is actually a casus belli with Spain. The US is tasting the international mood while they are still "negotiating" via ACTA and with ICANN. 2. The one that we identified in WG/IDNABis and that the whole digital ecosystem community still has to digest, that will most probably be opposed by many, mostly for egoand political reasons, because it uncouples servers and users in introducing an intelligent use interface at the network fringe, between the inside infrastructure and the outside users. Users become protected from the direct market and government real (as we recently learned) influence on servers and ISPs. In this sequence, we have (let us imagine fruit with the kernel [internal networks], pulp [IUI], and skin [UI to people and applications]): 1. people and services (rather than servers) peering on the outside - they all do exist; this is the people centric WSIS information society. 2. IUI on the networks periphery - Intelligent Use Interface. It has to provide a uniform networking experience to users/user-applications - the concept has emerged from IDNA2008 RFCs, etc. 3. the various central networking systems the use of which the IUI must make as transparent as possible, even in degraded situations. These systems range from experimentation (they do not exist) of the Internet of the future and high-speed Internet (it exists but may be shut down), down to "old techniques" (they do exist) being revived, adapted, and pampered towards a people's.net "emergency back-up +", which is the need we are meeting. One cannot address that kind a major, additional foundation in a few days, but one can document the findings on the matters and publish an IUCG I_D on the world digital ecosystem architectural principles and model as they are now emerging from 40 years of experience. To havebasic guidelines. The Internet principles are of constant change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 3439), and subsidiarity (IDNA2008), and the RFC 3935 gives some hints in defining additional Internet architectural options through the IETF mission. Most probably these principles are to build upon. What is interesting is that, due to the imposed constraints, experimentation costs should be very low. jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Feb 8 16:07:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DD33A68E3 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:07:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.578, BAYES_20=-0.74, DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.897, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c1EXH6RsFuD6 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A4C3A68DF for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 20.201-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.201.20]:62269 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PmxaN-00058b-KC; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:07:08 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110208213314.060c6ef0@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:07:14 -0500 To: GAC-BoardRSVP@icann.org From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: [iucg] attending the ICANN/GAC meeting X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:07:01 -0000 I wish the IUCG (Internet/IETF Users Contributing Group) to be present at the GAC/Board meeting since we will probably the first to introduce a technical support IETF Draft on this issue. Also because we have to conciliate internet TLDs and ULDs (Upper Level Domains) for non Internet use. Thank you. JFC Morfin Facilitator iucg@ietf.org http://iucg.org From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Feb 11 14:11:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605D13A68C0 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:11:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAV1cLT0ECgt for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA4D3A680E for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 178.85-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.85.178]:51175 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Po1Cn-0007g0-Ml; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:11:11 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110211213518.054ba948@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:11:12 +0100 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , ICANN GTLD WG list , patrick@vande-walle.eu From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <4D3F563C.2050504@gih.com> <2f5cb1b637ea7367d93e82c0ef480556@mail.isoc.lu> References: <4D3F563C.2050504@gih.com> <2f5cb1b637ea7367d93e82c0ef480556@mail.isoc.lu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [GTLD-WG] Mark Carvell interviewed, etc. X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:11:20 -0000 At 00:01 26/01/2011, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > The GAC representative from the UK, Mark Carvell, has been asked his >opinion about the future GAC/Board meeting in Brussels, speaking >specifically about Intellectual Property Rights. An interesting blog >sheds some light over recent developments in the GAC regarding that subject: >http://domainincite.com/governments-to-take-trademark-concerns-to-icann/ At 08:26 09/02/2011, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20030809-281.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/USGmonstrosity.pdf These people are 1983 Star Strek 2.0 culture. DNs (Domain Names) as they consider them are only: - a one class, one presentation, K$ 250 TLD tiny, ICANN USG delegated subset of - IDNs (Internet Domain Names, with 40K presentations, 65K classes, millions of top level identifications, designation and denomination suffixes) that are themselves a subset of - UDN (User Domain Names, with billions of ULD, Upper Level Domains) as everyone can rustically implementing them in using the hosts file. For those ignoring what it exactly is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_%28file%29. Those having more competences can use Bind by the Internet System Consortium. In Linux and Windows environments. Or other various softwares as those documented in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_server_software can also be used. The mistake these politicians do is to believe in their own wrong reading of IAB's for information RFC 2826 "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root" where ICANN is not discussed, nor the nature (effective or virtual of the unique root), nor its management, nor the UDNS (Universal Domain Name System) the considered DNS belongs to nor, by the way, the ML-DNS (MultiLayer DNS) and the support of the multiple use, multiple technologies, multiple environment Naming Piles. What they all should do, including ICANN staff and Rof Beckstrom, Suzane Sene and her GAC fellow members, is to (re)read an excellent compendium on the matter published as an Internet Coordination Policy - A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS (ICP-3) by the Californian Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This Internet Coordination Policy - A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS (ICP-3) by the Californian Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers states "In an ever-evolving Internet, ultimately there may be better architectures for getting the job done where the need for a single, authoritative root will not be an issue. ... the transition to such an architecture, should it emerge, would require community-based approaches. In the interim, responsible experimentation should be encouraged, but it should not be done in a manner that affects those who do not consent after being informed of the character of the experiment." I must say that I organnized, and carried for nearly two years, an ICP-3 conformant community test as ICANN suggested to IETF (the dot-root project). It involved 30 name servers organized in three parallel hierarchies. It was abundantly reported (on a paying basis, in French). It confirmed most what we expected in terms of practical UDNS capacity and internal possible conflicts. It lead to our positions irt. RFC 4647 and to the consensus we obtained regarding IDNA2008 and its architectural implications. Now, when I want to access ICANN I enter "nuts" in my browser and there are years that I do not use any USG or altroots root file, just my PSL (personal suffix list). So, I think I belong to those possibly billions of e-gyptians who do not care too much of this wave of mubarackobamamania. I must also say that I reported Project.FRA needs that IDNA2008 did not cover within the current IAB architectural framework http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt, needing some more additions/.clarifications that IESG qualified as research. This research is under way and will responsibly experiment it, together with other xTLDs (experimental TLDs) during this year (we wish not to conflict with the USG's toy level domain as long as we have not our own DNS servers software able to easily support multiple Classes) This research is obviously open to everyone, and calls for everyone to contribute jfc Internet Users Contributing Group. iucg@ietf.org http://iucg.org From jfc@morfin.org Mon Feb 21 17:27:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974D33A67AF for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:27:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX9OstnYsgzv for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D4C3A67AE for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from 77.86-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.86.77]:59808 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Prh2O-0005t0-2U; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:27:37 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110221114207.05937990@morfin.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:27:40 +0100 To: John C Klensin ,"Vint Cerf" From: "J-F C. Morfin" In-Reply-To: References: <4D46CF62.9070301@vpnc.org> <892C129E-1CAE-440B-9D00-EF5FBAB338CF@frobbit.se> <29E69563-97A4-4E16-8F36-56B37209E8C6@frobbit.se> <87pqqmd9he.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - morfin.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: idna-update@alvestrand.no, iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:27:03 -0000 At 16:56 20/02/2011, John C Klensin wrote: > IDNA2003 used normative tables and the IDNA2008 uses normative rules. This is a very good definition. It does help explaining why new tables can be built to address new user needs along these IDNA2008 rules. However, there is then a new rule which is implied (up-to-now I included it in the precautionary duty), which is to build and keep these IDNA2008 rules conformant tables interoperable. IDNA2008 introduces the principle of subsidiarity, permitting the world digital ecosystem to also use the Internet to support diversity in general, and linguistic diversity in particular. I understand the principle of subsidiairity as "the active respect of others' responsibilities". It comes with what we name "le principe de Suppléance" in French (I did not find its translation in English), which implies that what cannot be done at a lower level should be supported at the appropriate upper level. Interoperability is by definition an upper level service which must permit interoperability between IDNA2008 tables, Unicode tables, our INCSA explored tables (http://incsa.org) that will be introduced at MAAYA general assembly in UNESCO tomorrow. At this time, Unicode maintained ISO 10646 coding fullfils this job as long as IDNA is limited to scripts and not to broader semiotic. Ultimately the common referent should be sign oriented (any kind of sign : including move, sound, logo, scripts, computation, etc.) because in a people centric approach, the refererence should be the people's evolving perceptions rather than a table documented machine capability or a fixed way of scripting texts. In other words, ISO 10646/Unicode is a complexe and complete technical offer, not a simple open response to new user demands.(including preventing phishing). Best jfc From jfc@morfin.org Fri Feb 25 07:25:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017413A69E9 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:25:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FErBir3XmxrQ for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1B03A69E2 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 240.148-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.148.240]:56736 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PszY2-0007zy-4V; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:25:39 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110224211508.05b24ef8@morfin.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:25:39 +0100 To: John C Klensin ,Lyman Chapin , Simon Josefsson From: "J-F C. Morfin" In-Reply-To: <6FFECB82EEC789330263DFAD@PST.JCK.COM> References: <871v2y1fpf.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <87wrkpzxya.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <656BDCEA-163F-4B1F-AA7F-0D381942EE9C@interisle.net> <6FFECB82EEC789330263DFAD@PST.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_133667631==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - morfin.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: idna-update@alvestrand.no, iucg@ietf.org, Tina Dam Subject: Re: [iucg] xn--p1ai X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:25:25 -0000 --=====================_133667631==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 18:31 24/02/2011, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:31 -0500 Lyman Chapin > wrote: > > > Simon, > > > > I think that many of us expect the case-folding behavior of > > IDNA2003 to be preserved by applications (esp. web browsers) > > at least during the transition to IDNA2008 (e.g., following > > UTS #46, http://unicode.org/reports/tr46). > >And some of us believe that the recommendation of RFC 5895, >which include mapping to lower case (see its Section 2, item 1), >are more appropriate than UTS #46. Let me clarify this also from an IUser point of view, as we initially and determinedly oppose case-folding. (NB. An IUser is a member of the IUse emerging community who is interested in the people centric convergent use of the Internet along with the other (smart or not) available bandwidths from the world digital ecosystem). 1. We accepted John Klensin's proposition During the WG/IDNABis work, we were able to identify that IDNA2008 casefolding, as and where proposed by John Klensin, permitted a clear and stable response for the Internet bandwidth that we could typically interface with our own ML-DNS (multi-naming-layer language/technology/context independent) concept. Such an ML-DNS, as we explore and work on it, could be documented as another RFC 5895-like example on the user side of the network side IDNA2008. 2. The WG did not care about French This ML-DNS of us addresses our "Projet.FRA" (http://a-fra.org) needs for a Francophone open ontology using its name space as an ontology and a semantic network, which I reported to the IESG Last Call. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt. 2.1. we reported it to IESG/LC It emphasizes that IDNA2008 does not support French majuscules (first letter in a phrase or in an important word) that Unicode does _not_ support either, except as uppercases and, therefore, our obligation to build a solution on top of IDNA2008. This is because Unicode tables document a mechanical typography, and registrants need to have their orthotypography rules (and not tables) supported (orthotypography is the syntax of the way one writes a language - something that is out of the IDNA2008 and Unicode scope). French language speakers unwaveringly demand such a support as well as the other Latin language speakers. To explain: "Etat" means "State/Government," état" means "status", etc. That situation calls for: 1. a mapping of everything to lowercase so that everything is stable, clear, and secure. 2. us to add the majuscule information as a metadata that we investigated in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt. 2.2. our position is qualified as "research" The IESG considered our position and our plea for a quick validation of the IDNA2008 consensual document set (so that we would know the rock to build upon). IESG also considered our proposition as "research". Since we have other topics for semantic research on this project, we are considering different choices with members of the MAAYA network (linguistic diversity) and will introduce ".fra" (along with other projects we call "xTLD"s, i.e. experimental TLDs, once ICANN finishes its gTLD rigmarole, in order to avoid any unnecessary naming conflicts). We will first document a charter on the way to use the Internet as its own test bed through an RFC for information on "intertesting" in gathering different ICANN and IETF requirements. 3. Strength of IDNA2008 and IDNA is weakness Another reason why we pleaded for IDNA2008 to be quickly accepted was that the AD (once we had completed the WG/LC and IETF/LC) started to question, and rightly so, the IDNA principle itself. As RFC 6055 partly also does: will different applications present the same A-label to the DNS? Our ML-DNS vision addresses that concern because it extends the DNS and, therefore, utilizes a single Internet DNS Use Interface with unchanged applications that are transparent to the U-label actually entered by the Users. 3.1. The presentation layer. This is the role of the presentation layer. "The Presentation Layer is responsible for the delivery and formatting of information to the application layer for further processing or display." The Internet presentation layer was virtual. It was introduced by i-DNS and by IDNA2003 in using the "xx--" ACE prefixes. Yet the idea to dedicate it to the sole linguistic names at user application layer (i.e. outside of the network area) was only a patch that the ML-DNS (i.e. on top of the DNS in the network area) corrects. Applications like browsers have nothing to do with domain name massaging, we just want them to pass our entries to the domain name management systems (plural, as we may or not be using the Internet or the Internet technology, and the DNS or not). 3.2. the IUI However, this introduces the notion of a fringe IUI (Internet Use Interface) that faces no problem in becoming an "Intelligent Use Interface" with multiple technologies, and to consider an IUDNS (intelligent use domain name space) of which the Internet domain space is a small yet open part, of which the class IN is 1/65,000-th and of which the ICANN root space is a tiny commercial chunk. 4. Technical vs. technico-commercial disagreement IAB RFC 3869 explains as to why the commercial reasons of applications developers, who are also service providers, such as Microsoft and Google, and their Unicode consortium, may lead some of their employees to plea/lobby against common technical interest, for an internet that pays better rather than works better. The same, paying services or immaterial goods merchants may prefer a client/server architecture tying users to their proprietary offer (such as Apple etc., which is another Unicode consortium leading member). However, some IETF leaders and smart Google people have now swallowed and are digesting the optional change introduced by IDNA2008 with: - the "inside" Internet - encapsulated into an uncoupled peripheral extended (intelligent) services "IUI" (Internet Use Interface), interfacing the user universe, - itself accessing and operating the Internet and other systems of the world digital ecosystem though their own "IUI" (Intelligent Use Interface). 5. A strictly conformant architectural enhancement This change totally conforms with the Internet architectural principles: 5.1. RFC 1958 principle of constant change: the change is dramatic but does not require a single bit change in the code. It consists in looking at the Internet from the outside rather than from the inside. 5.1. RFC 3439 principle of simplicity: why give huge and unlimited DNS responsibility to browsers and applications. Let's keep it simple. ASCII just works, let not fix it with complexity (cf. the exemple of this thread) 5.3. the RFC 5890 to RFC 5895 set unlimitedly "multiplies by division" the power of the Internet in installing an endlessly diversified intelligent capacity to match external diversity (such as linguistic diversity) where RFC 1958 and all the IETF culture puts it: at the fringe. By doing so, it acknowledges that the Internet technology matches a third fundamental networking principle, the principle of subsidiarity. 6. The IUse community primary targets Based on the ML-DNS/IUI principle, we mainly target seven fringe to fringe areas: 6.1. active/abient content: The internet currently only supports passive content (what I receive is what was sent). We need active (what I receive is what the sender intended me to receive) and ambient (what I receive is what corresponds to my current context) contents to be supported. 6.2.smart extended network services: We want to get local slots supported (smart local operative tasks), i.e. local OPES or peers to the remote connection peers able to uncouple the client/server interoperations and extend the user's experience of the used network's technology. 6.3. semantic networking: We consider three main communication strata serving - signal/data basic services, - content (passive [value-added services], active and ambient [extended services]), - and semiotic/semantic (facilitation services). Semiotic means the incorporation of many sources of perception and utterance other than script and dumb voice and image. Semantic means the exchange of meanings that can be extracted and processed by the facilitation services along with the perceived context and the receiving mood and options. Semantics' coherence is as precise as geometry's correspondance and mathematics equivalence. Their figures only can be draft, computed or discussed. 6.4. multilingualisation: We consider an anthropobotic society where machines and people interspeak. This means that several new linguistic disciplines must be considered: 6.4.1. "multilinguistic": as the way several languages may coexist in use, machines, process, and society, and be treated as equal (multilingualisation is a layer above Unicode's globalization in the sense that it could be termed as a specific value added equal globalization of every natural language). A multilinguistic Internet would probably focus on a score of languages, and then 150 main languages in an operational community effort, and a standardized approach for volunteers and/or local authorities to get other natural languages (22.500) identified, documented, and supported. 6.4.2. mecalinguistic: as the way to manage machines' natural language and their interinfluence with the language version of the language. Example: English and MecaEnglish and MecaFrench. 6.4.3. metalinguistic: up to now metalanguages were rather limited depending on the natural language being considered, French being probably the most metalanguage embedded. However, facilitation is going to call on ontographies and ontologies that will lead to a generalization of the mostly French used "metaduction" (what is wrongly termed "Cartesian") as a simplification of deduction, induction, abduction, and hypothetico-deduction in front of the apparent networking complexity (RFC 3439 is a network oriented prerequisite in this area). 6.5. convergence of the digital ecosystem use: The World Summit on the Information Society has clearly defined the humanity consensual target of a digital societal support being "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona". We assign the IUI the role to provide the user with an equal alternative basic, value added, extended and facilitated, and stable enough networking experience with any digital technology and digital communication network environment. 6.6. personal digital empowerment: Through the above, the definition of a user oriented (graphic sign) international network character set (e.g. Bulgaria IDNccTLD problem), the establishment of an MDRS (metadata distributed registry system) to be understood as a distributed personal super-IANA cognition center for the three strata that we defined and their related services, etc. we want to ensure the full e-empowerment of every person (we make the difference between a user in a (de)centralized user (i.e. customer) centric approach and a person in a person centric distributed and/or intricate environment. 6.7. diktiologies support: Since "diktyos" in Greek means network, diktyology has two meanings: 6.7.1. the science of studying networks, from quarks to the Internet through to political and commercial lobbies. 6.7.2. the multidimensional, diversified, open, and intricate network equivalent to an ontology. What "Projet.FRA" actually targets is a Francophone diktyology associated to a diktyography. Some network level and distributed/intricate integrated semantic web equivalent to be used and completed by people through the MDRS. 7. Market evolution Now, some clever service provider's people will understand where the market lies for their corporation in this IUse usage evolution, and they will be the network commercial leaders of tomorrow. Others will not, and they will see the progressive obsolescence of their market share. What is interesting is that the coming Brussels talk between ICANN and GAC may trigger a fast evolution if they obstinately (both sides) continue to ignore Vint Cerf's proposition, as the WG/IDNABis Chair, that the user oriented debate in the continuation of IDNA2008 should be managed by ICANN. I opposed that because ICANN does not represent users, but that was unnecessary: ICANN is not even interested in the matter (don't ask me why), even if it leads to total confusion in their part of the IUDNS. 8. Current situation I/we delayed the introduction of ML-DNS for personal health (in my case) as well as for strategic reasons, to give time to the IESG, IAB, and Unicode members to consider where/how these issues should be addressed and documented, and to permit ICANN to reconsider, due to its new BoD Members. So far, 8.1. IESG and IAB were clear enough, the IUI does not belong to their "inside" Internet scope (moreover, it will deal with many other technologies), I am taking this into account to try to structure the IUse community, using the iucg@ietf.org non-WG mailing list as an open liaison between the two scopes. 8.2. Unicode has not introduced any proposition to support orthotypographic metadata. 8.3. ICANN has continued to enlarge their GAG (gTLD applicant Guide). --=====================_133667631==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 18:31 24/02/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, February 24, 2011 09:31 -0500 Lyman Chapin
<lyman@interisle.net> wrote:

> Simon,
>
> I think that many of us expect the case-folding behavior of
> IDNA2003 to be preserved by applications (esp. web browsers)
> at least during the transition to IDNA2008 (e.g., following
> UTS #46, http://unicode.org/reports/tr46).

And some of us believe that the recommendation of RFC 5895,
which include mapping to lower case (see its Section 2, item 1),
are more appropriate than UTS #46. 

Let me clarify this also from an IUser point of view, as we initially and determinedly oppose case-folding. (NB. An IUser is a member of the IUse emerging community who is interested in the people centric convergent use of the Internet along with the other (smart or not) available bandwidths from the world digital ecosystem).

1. We accepted John Klensin's proposition

During the WG/IDNABis work, we were able to identify that IDNA2008 casefolding, as and where proposed by John Klensin, permitted a clear and stable response for the Internet bandwidth that we could typically interface with our own ML-DNS (multi-naming-layer language/technology/context independent) concept. Such an ML-DNS, as we explore and work on it, could be documented as another RFC 5895-like example on the user side of the network side IDNA2008.

2. The WG did not care about French

This ML-DNS of us addresses our "Projet.FRA" (http://a-fra.org) needs for a Francophone open ontology using its name space as an ontology and a semantic network, which I reported to the IESG Last Call. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt.

2.1. we reported it to IESG/LC

It emphasizes that IDNA2008 does not support French majuscules (first letter in a phrase or in an important word) that Unicode does _not_ support either, except as uppercases and, therefore, our obligation to build a solution on top of IDNA2008. This is because Unicode tables document a mechanical typography, and registrants need to have their orthotypography rules (and not tables) supported (orthotypography is the syntax of the way one writes a language - something that is out of the IDNA2008 and Unicode scope). French language speakers unwaveringly demand such a support as well as the other Latin language speakers. To explain: "Etat" means "State/Government," état" means "status", etc.

That situation calls for:

1. a mapping of everything to lowercase so that everything is stable, clear, and secure.
2. us to add the majuscule information as a metadata that we investigated in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt.

2.2. our position is qualified as "research"

The IESG considered our position and our plea for a quick validation of the IDNA2008 consensual document set (so that we would know the rock to build upon). IESG also considered our proposition as "research". Since we have other topics for semantic research on this project, we are considering different choices with members of the MAAYA network (linguistic diversity) and will introduce ".fra" (along with other projects we call "xTLD"s, i.e. experimental TLDs, once ICANN finishes its gTLD rigmarole, in order to avoid any unnecessary naming conflicts). We will first document a charter on the way to use the Internet as its own test bed through an RFC for information on "intertesting" in gathering different ICANN and IETF requirements.

3. Strength of IDNA2008 and IDNA is weakness

Another reason why we pleaded for IDNA2008 to be quickly accepted was that the AD (once we had completed the WG/LC and IETF/LC) started to question, and rightly so, the IDNA principle itself. As RFC 6055 partly also does: will different applications present the same A-label to the DNS? Our ML-DNS vision addresses that concern because it extends the DNS and, therefore, utilizes a single Internet DNS Use Interface with unchanged applications that are transparent to the U-label actually entered by the Users.

3.1. The presentation layer.

This is the role of the presentation layer. "The Presentation Layer is responsible for the delivery and formatting of information to the application layer for further processing or display."  The Internet presentation layer was virtual. It was introduced by i-DNS and by IDNA2003 in using the "xx--" ACE prefixes. Yet the idea to dedicate it to the sole linguistic names at user application layer (i.e. outside of the network area) was only a patch that the ML-DNS (i.e. on top of the DNS in the network area) corrects. Applications like browsers have nothing to do with domain name massaging, we just want them to pass our entries to the domain name management systems (plural, as we may or not be using the Internet or the Internet technology, and the DNS or not).

3.2. the IUI

However, this introduces the notion of a fringe IUI (Internet Use Interface) that faces no problem in becoming an "Intelligent Use Interface" with multiple technologies, and to consider an IUDNS (intelligent use domain name space) of which the Internet domain space is a small yet open part, of which the class IN is 1/65,000-th and of which the ICANN root space is a tiny commercial chunk.

4. Technical vs. technico-commercial disagreement

IAB RFC 3869 explains as to why the commercial reasons of applications developers, who are also service providers, such as Microsoft and Google, and their Unicode consortium, may lead some of their employees to plea/lobby against common technical interest, for an internet that pays better rather than works better. The same, paying services or immaterial goods merchants may prefer a client/server architecture tying users to their proprietary offer (such as Apple etc., which is another Unicode consortium leading member).

However, some IETF leaders and smart Google people have now swallowed and are digesting the optional change introduced by IDNA2008 with:
- the "inside" Internet
- encapsulated into an uncoupled peripheral extended (intelligent) services "IUI" (Internet Use Interface), interfacing the user universe,
- itself accessing and operating the Internet and other systems of the world digital ecosystem though their own "IUI" (Intelligent Use Interface).

5. A strictly conformant architectural enhancement

This change totally conforms with the Internet architectural principles:

5.1. RFC 1958 principle of constant change: the change is dramatic but does not require a single bit change in the code. It consists in looking at the Internet from the outside rather than from the inside.

5.1. RFC 3439 principle of simplicity: why give huge and unlimited DNS responsibility to browsers and applications. Let’s keep it simple. ASCII just works, let not fix it with complexity (cf. the exemple of this thread)

5.3. the RFC 5890 to RFC 5895 set unlimitedly "multiplies by division" the power of the Internet in installing an endlessly diversified intelligent capacity to match external diversity (such as linguistic diversity) where RFC 1958 and all the IETF culture puts it: at the fringe. By doing so, it acknowledges that the Internet technology matches a third fundamental networking principle, the principle of subsidiarity.

 6. The IUse community primary targets

Based on the ML-DNS/IUI principle, we mainly target seven fringe to fringe areas:

6.1. active/abient content:

The internet currently only supports passive content (what I receive is what was sent). We need active (what I receive is what the sender intended me to receive) and ambient (what I receive is what corresponds to my current context) contents to be supported.

6.2.smart extended network services:

We want to get local slots supported (smart local operative tasks), i.e. local OPES or peers to the remote connection peers able to uncouple the client/server interoperations and extend the user's experience of the used network's technology.

6.3. semantic networking:

We consider three main communication strata serving

- signal/data basic services,
- content (passive [value-added services], active and ambient [extended services]),
- and semiotic/semantic (facilitation services). Semiotic means the incorporation of many sources of perception and utterance other than script and dumb voice and image. Semantic means the exchange of meanings that can be extracted and processed by the facilitation services along with the perceived context and the receiving mood and options. Semantics' coherence is as precise as geometry's correspondance and mathematics equivalence. Their figures only can be draft, computed or discussed.

6.4. multilingualisation:

We consider an anthropobotic society where machines and people interspeak. This means that several new linguistic disciplines must be considered:

6.4.1. "multilinguistic": as the way several languages may coexist in use, machines, process, and society, and be treated as equal (multilingualisation is a layer above Unicode's globalization in the sense that it could be termed as a specific value added equal globalization of every natural language). A multilinguistic Internet would probably focus on a score of languages, and then 150 main languages in an operational community effort, and a standardized approach for volunteers and/or local authorities to get other natural languages (22.500) identified, documented, and supported.

6.4.2. mecalinguistic: as the way to manage machines' natural language and their interinfluence with the language version of the language. Example: English and MecaEnglish and MecaFrench.

6.4.3. metalinguistic: up to now metalanguages were rather limited depending on the natural language being considered, French being probably the most metalanguage embedded. However, facilitation is going to call on ontographies and ontologies that will lead to a generalization of the mostly French used "metaduction" (what is wrongly termed "Cartesian") as a simplification of deduction, induction, abduction, and hypothetico-deduction in front of the apparent networking complexity (RFC 3439 is a network oriented prerequisite in this area).

6.5. convergence of the digital ecosystem use:

The World Summit on the Information Society has clearly defined the humanity consensual target of a digital societal support being "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona". We assign the IUI the role to provide the user with an equal alternative basic, value added, extended and facilitated, and stable enough networking experience with any digital technology and digital communication network environment.

6.6. personal digital empowerment:

Through the above, the definition of a user oriented (graphic sign) international network character set (e.g. Bulgaria IDNccTLD problem), the establishment of an MDRS (metadata distributed registry system) to be understood as a distributed personal super-IANA cognition center for the three strata that we defined and their related services, etc. we want to ensure the full e-empowerment of every person (we make the difference between a user in a (de)centralized user (i.e. customer) centric approach and a person in a person centric distributed and/or intricate environment.

6.7. diktiologies support:

Since "diktyos" in Greek means network, diktyology has two meanings:

6.7.1. the science of studying networks, from quarks to the Internet through to political and commercial lobbies.

6.7.2. the multidimensional, diversified, open, and intricate network equivalent to an ontology. What "Projet.FRA" actually targets is a Francophone diktyology associated to a diktyography. Some network level and distributed/intricate integrated semantic web equivalent to be used and completed by people through the MDRS.

7. Market evolution

Now, some clever service provider's people will understand where the market lies for their corporation in this IUse usage evolution, and they will be the network commercial leaders of tomorrow. Others will not, and they will see the progressive obsolescence of their market share.

What is interesting is that the coming Brussels talk between ICANN and GAC may trigger a fast evolution if they obstinately (both sides) continue to ignore Vint Cerf's proposition, as the WG/IDNABis Chair, that the user oriented debate in the continuation of IDNA2008 should be managed by ICANN. I opposed that because ICANN does not represent users, but that was unnecessary: ICANN is not even interested in the matter (don’t ask me why), even if it leads to total confusion in their part of the IUDNS.

8. Current situation

I/we delayed the introduction of ML-DNS for personal health (in my case) as well as for strategic reasons, to give time to the IESG, IAB, and Unicode members to consider where/how these issues should be addressed and documented, and to permit ICANN to reconsider, due to its new BoD Members. So far,

8.1. IESG and IAB were clear enough, the IUI does not belong to their "inside" Internet scope (moreover, it will deal with many other technologies), I am taking this into account to try to structure the IUse community, using the iucg@ietf.org non-WG mailing list as an open liaison between the two scopes.

8.2. Unicode has not introduced any proposition to support orthotypographic metadata.

8.3. ICANN has continued to enlarge their GAG (gTLD applicant Guide).
--=====================_133667631==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Feb 26 23:53:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E916E3A691D for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:53:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBsG03OdPkae for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1BF3A6918 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 240.148-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.148.240]:50762 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtbS1-0000V5-9U for iucg@ietf.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:53:57 -0800 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110227085007.0605aaa0@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:53:56 +0100 To: iucg@ietf.org From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: [iucg] IETF I_D on IDNA support of orthotypography X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:02 -0000 For your information, continuous work on this I_D will be at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNA2008_support_of_orthotypography Beware: this I_D and its discussion on this list is subject to ISOC Copyrights. New concepts to be added should therefore be discussed on IUTF public domain list. jfc ---- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Orthotypographic support by IDNA2008: an IUse point of view. Author(s) : J. Morfin Filename : draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2011-02-26 IDNA 2008 does not support, as such, the language orthotypography that IUsers need and that the evolution towards the Intersem (Semantic Internet) reclaims. This memo introduces the positive position of the IUse community on the matter. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt