From jmabdp@gmail.com Tue Aug 2 06:35:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D4721F84D8; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:35:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.765 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4nV0yymQKMyW; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8440C21F855D; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so4668471yxp.31 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:35:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=htWNCJ6JRB/QMeMM8tqB5cd9ysJFssX8Vm+Y8MSsMPQ=; b=Z5MKSjN7kJ9qb0sS+rJ5FJ4MfRQHiT5DtKyy1RYqwBdYidSTBjwSHGk4lcHye8PBJ8 Ts61MBF72nKbKZkOKcoA0+PyUz5vohUN0PVc/A+H1i1y118qheKWi4zObXuJ2knBgaxB gRwNkKBDGm/B3wJy1CO0vbiUPUz+M00U3jMFM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.145.226 with SMTP id p62mr4725138yhj.290.1312292147442; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.2 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:35:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110727122404.06a73278@jefsey.com> References: <20110725215540.GA1878@shinkuro.com> <000601cc4b1e$57944a60$06bcdf20$@mobiry.com> <20110725233019.GK1878@shinkuro.com> <4E2E73E1.2080901@digsys.bg> <6B046E3B-CBE6-43A5-B4FA-7BFBD7A89240@eurid.eu> <7.0.1.0.2.20110727002912.055ab6d8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110727122404.06a73278@jefsey.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:35:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384 Cc: vip@icann.org, Joseph Yee , Giovanni Seppia , precis@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" Subject: Re: [iucg] Internet User review: IDNA2008 follow-up at IETF/PRECIS and ICANN/VIP X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 02 Aug 2011 13:35:39 -0000 --20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jefsey, I have carefully read this. It is the basis for a key IUTF draft (IETF is Internet Engineering, IUTF is emerging Intelligent Use, IUCG is their de facto working liaison). I think all of this will become much clearer to all of us with experimentation, hence after development and testing. However, there will be sometime before this (end of the year?) and there can be misunderstandings before over some terms. We need to avoid that. The VIP/etc. proposition and the IAB efforts start with a glossary proposition. We have already prepared formated texts with IAB and ICANN glossary documents. We had to start adding our own ones for information. So, everyone can piggyback a global list. I think at the confusion between what we name polynyms (the different names of the same thing/address) and alias (an personal name for something CNAME or on my mobile menu, etc.) with what VIP discussed. The word alias is not even used in RFC 2672 which describes DNAME VIP wants to discuss in part. Obviously the difficulty is that each party (technical with IETF, operatio-legal with ICANN, lead-usage with us) has its own vision, experience, independance. I started gathering the terms at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary. I added the problem statement of PRECIS. It could be great if you could review it. Anyone can send me comments on the VIP, PRECIS and IUCG lists. I hope this help. Portzamparc 2011/7/29 JFC Morfin > > Jean-Michel, > > I agree with you. However, things are not that simple. Andrew Sullivan > asked for an algorithm and he is right: machines and systems need > algorithms. What you emphasize is that in our cases (Variants, Stringprep > replacement, IDNA support on the user side, extended services naming, > IUsers' expectations, etc.) the algorithmic nature is just as precise as the > mathematical algorithm that Andrew expects, but it obeys an entirely > different logic because it also involves a brain to brain level. We have the > tool (fringe to fringe as permitted by IDNA2008 and exemplified in RFC > 5895) to support it but we first have to understand and document this logic. > > Therefore, we first need to get everyone who shares this burden to accept > that their approach is to be shared with others and to understand that their > logic and the logic of the others will help, but that the final logic cannot > be a common logic. It is a new logic to we have to explore in common. Their > experience and the experience of the others are needed but the case that we > have to address is totally new. > > T > --20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jefsey,

I have carefully read this. It is the basis for a key IUTF d= raft (IETF is Internet Engineering, IUTF is emerging Intelligent Use, IUCG = is their de facto working liaison). I think all of this will become much cl= earer to all of us with experimentation, hence after development and testin= g.

However, there will be sometime before this (end of the year?) and ther= e can be misunderstandings before over some terms. We need to avoid that. T= he VIP/etc. proposition and the IAB efforts start with a glossary propositi= on. We have already prepared formated texts with IAB and ICANN glossary doc= uments. We had to start adding our own ones for information. So, everyone c= an piggyback a global list.

I think at the confusion between what we name polynyms (the different n= ames of the same thing/address) and alias (an personal name for something C= NAME or on my mobile menu, etc.) with what VIP discussed. The word alias is= not even used in RFC 2672 which describes DNAME VIP wants to discuss in pa= rt. Obviously the difficulty is that each party (technical with IETF, opera= tio-legal with ICANN, lead-usage with us) has its own vision, experience, i= ndependance.

I started gathering the terms at=A0 http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.
I add= ed the problem statement of PRECIS.
It could be great if you could revie= w it.

Anyone can send me comments on the VIP, PRECIS and IUCG lists.
I hop= e this help.

Portzamparc

2011/7/29= JFC Morfin <jefs= ey@jefsey.com>

Jean-Michel,

I agree with you. However, things are not that simple. Andrew Sullivan aske= d for an algorithm and he is right: machines and systems need algorithms. W= hat you emphasize is that in our cases (Variants, Stringprep replacement, I= DNA support on the user side, extended services naming, IUsers' expecta= tions, etc.) the algorithmic nature is just as precise as the mathematical = algorithm that Andrew expects, but it obeys an entirely different logic bec= ause it also involves a brain to brain level. We have the tool (fringe to f= ringe as permitted by IDNA2008 and =A0exemplified in RFC 5895) to support i= t but we first have to understand and document this logic.

Therefore, we first need to get everyone who shares this burden to accept t= hat their approach is to be shared with others and to understand that their= logic and the logic of the others will help, but that the final logic cann= ot be a common logic. It is =A0a new logic to we have to explore in common.= Their experience and the experience of the others are needed but the case = that we have to address is totally new.

T

--20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Aug 2 09:36:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8577A11E8095 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E4 hex): Cc: nicholas@ostler.net,Patrik F\344ltstr\366m ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5A611E808F for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 227.134-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.134.227]:58685 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QoHx3-0006VE-9W; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:36:17 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:37:19 +0200 To: Andrew Sullivan From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.com> References: <4E3188F7.3000802@ostler.net> <0B3BA86C-DDFD-4C7C-A539-6EA75EB2F024@frobbit.se> <4E327BD2.4010908@ostler.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802145622.0e0d6f88@jefsey.com> <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.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: nicholas@ostler.net, Patrik Fältström , arabic-vip@icann.org, devanagari-vip@icann.org, iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 02 Aug 2011 16:36:27 -0000 At 15:58 02/08/2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 03:41:04PM +0200, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 11:22 29/07/2011, Nicholas Ostler wrote: > > >>The DNS only have three parameters in a query: {owner, type, class}. > > > > Incorrect. It also has the prefix and the TLD that can be used to > > support presentation elements. Dear Andrew, I am afraid my proposition is not as tricky as you are afraid. But better I explain it so, you can criticize it if I was wrong. I am also interested in your draft. It only relates to few things I propose and we tested for more than a decade as "quiest" and also my point that unicode is inadequate to neworking. None has any impact with the DNS. By TLD I mean TLD and by prefix I mean whatever label(s) someone may want to conventinally introduce prior to the domain name he/she uses. I quote them together because both can be used together. 1. "zonale" (and netlocale about the . This only means that a TLD manager should maintain a possibly empty information center at zonale.tld, as ut uses to operate a nic.tld or a www.tld. And that this ZIC provides presentation oriented information and IDN tables. This will be simpler, faster and more equal to everyone than the IANA where only $ 187.000+ TLDs and ISO 3166 ccTLDs can be documented (please remember that my logic for 1/3 of century is ICANN/ICP-3-Part 5) 2. "prefix". I personally hate the WHOIS which violates every privacy law throughout the world and is of very low interest in terms of possibly included data. For years I advocate the quiest.domain.name optional formula for people to say what they want about themselves, or nothing. There is no difficulty in having a list of such registries, sub-hosts, or pages that can be used to give formated information on the host, its relational spaces, its policy, its zonale, etc Obviously the prefix.tld or prefix.zic.tld or prefix.nic.tld or prefix.www.tld can be used to give TLD zone information. >Zone cuts in the DNS are there for the administrative convenience _of >the DNS_, and are not in themselves any kind of information about >administrative boundaries for policy. :-) this is something you should explain to ICANN@ 185.000 per zone. Actually I would suggest that every TLD supports an icann.tld name where it would document its relations with ICANN, the amount it pays to ICANN, etc. And obviously a variants.TLD if they are not documented in the zonale file. >The misunderstanding of this >distinction, for instance, is a primary reason that http cookies are >subject to so many woeful security problems, and why we have ended up >with preposterous mechanisms like publicsuffix.org. However, a very interesting initiative in terms of relation to the DNS orgnanization and monetary value. >The reason policy is important and unusual at or near the root is not >because those zones are somehow special, but because they mostly do >delegation out to other operators, so innovations at those points in >the tree are places that can affect a large number of other zones. Sure, but you know that I have an heterarchical vision of the top zone. So, it is technically slightly less important to me than to you. But it can certainly be highly confusing for many. This is why variants should be carefully treated in coordination with all the other use of names, in every technology. >Therefore, > > > I think it is time to introduce the concept of "zonale" definition > > file that document the parameters of a TLD relational space. > > For example, the .FRA zonale will document the sensitivity of .FRA > > domain names to majuscule. > >if what you are suggesting is that it needs to be possible to track >down certain policy rules about a zone by looking up the location of >such a policy in the DNS, along with rules about what to do if a zone >doesn't come with a policy, then I might agree (and indeed, I >committed during IETF week to put out a draft along these lines). This is an interesting news. The question is about the DNS itself beeing used as a data repository, or a DDDS or a linked registry, or some SQLite engine. I am personally interested in investing some effort this summer time in ISO 11169 and see how to amalgamate the concepts involved in all this. I am considering building from scratch a multi-registry server as part of the ML-DNS support. > If >you're suggesting instead that we use the mere fact of the fully >qualified domain name's labels to entail different formatting >conventions, then I predict widespread failure from such simple >inferences. I am not sure I understand what you mean, unless you are afraid that I try to infer some information from the simple, common way a FQDN looks like. This is not the case. Best jfc From jmabdp@gmail.com Fri Aug 5 17:42:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865D121F8658; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:42:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3BK0pwj+etcy; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C087A21F863E; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12so400971yie.31 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YuzF7XqVm20MmlEjtW2AxAI+EHTkyKQdQZdrPFG869Y=; b=iIFN/g+Jk61tPEG2pFXOtCNLmJ40SPbz6iM5dP0HVnB154lHcakAQd4BGzzNQZEgLZ GYne7s1KSRLvdBJZj+sYwE1c5Cg67cHczvHWid+RrnKlpt5p1X2qcUk5c2WHB2uQCTb/ JBsZV9PE3rf2puwRBnuBEGx7Ckm9Yht+VJMC0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.145.226 with SMTP id p62mr3965815yhj.290.1312591389144; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.108.2 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 02:43:09 +0200 Message-ID: From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc To: IDNA update work , vip@icann.org, precis@ietf.org, iucg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4 Subject: [iucg] Update of the IDNS Glossary X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:42:51 -0000 --20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just to let you know that the wiki IDNS Common Glossary ( http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary) has been updated to cover: - the ML-DNS diagram - inputs from RFC 6055 - the different positions and problem statements This makes it a rather complete compendium of the post-IDNA2008 terms and propositions. I would be happy with your comments and suggestions. You can use the discussion page or send me a mail. Best Portzamparc --20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to let you know that the wiki IDNS Common Glossary (http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossa= ry) has been updated to cover:

- the ML-DNS diagram
- inputs = from RFC 6055
- the different positions and problem statements

This makes it a rat= her complete compendium of the post-IDNA2008 terms and propositions. I woul= d be happy with your comments and suggestions. You can use the discussion p= age or send me a mail.
Best
Portzamparc
--20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Aug 7 15:43:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F3821F87C5; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.918 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.919, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54RaPUCNksBm; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFE921F8799; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 143.168-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.168.143]:63911 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QqC47-0005VT-40; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:43:27 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110807173006.07245d28@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:44:49 +0200 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: Cc: vip@icann.org, bernarda@microsoft.com, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] post IDNA2008 integration and terminology X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 07 Aug 2011 22:43:15 -0000 I think our http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary now gathers the descriptions of the IETF and ICANN post IDNA2008 problems and of the terms proposed to discuss and address them. To complete the review of what we termed as the IDNA2010 problem (i.e. the integration of IDNA2008 within the Internet technology) and before considering what we termed as the IDNA2012 problem, i.e. the integration of IDNA2008 and IDNA2010 within the Internet architecture) we now have to: - run the equivalent of a WG/LC informing the VIP, PRECIS, former-IDNABis - request: - the new happiana list if hey have some comments. I think it would be useful for the IANA to maintain a multilingual Internet glossary. - Richard Adoba if his DYN DNS vs. IDNA2008 still holds. I think that IDNA2012 issues should not be discussed at this stage, but they can certainly be introduced (ex. ISO 11179). I suppose our target would bu to publish an "IDNS for Dummies" where the IDNS would be the post-IDNA2008 Internet DNS. Best jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 8 05:55:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912F821F8AF1 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:55:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2N05OqMnXVaR for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7CB21F8AF6 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 143.168-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.168.143]:49180 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QqPMs-0006zt-IT; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 05:55:43 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110808121949.07245950@morfin.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:57:08 +0200 To: "Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir" , Slim Amamou From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <4E3EFBB7.9080809@alvestrand.no> References: <4E3EFBB7.9080809@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_264805753==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: arabic-vip@icann.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , iucg@ietf.org, Arabic Scripts IDNA Subject: Re: [iucg] mixing different direction labels within same domain X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:55:23 -0000 --=====================_264805753==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Abdulrahman, dear Slim, we try to consolidate all the post-IDNA2008 points that are now to be addressed at Internet technology level (including those with an impact on the protocols but belonging to the architectural level that we plan to consolidate further on). This mostly concerns inputs from IANA, IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, ITU, John Klensin, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Hoffman, Vint Cerf, etc. The target is to help them all to consistently work in being aware of all the issues and in using the same terms with the same meaning. The current version of this compilation is at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary. Once we have compiled all the potocol level issues we will propose all the concerned parties to consolidate them into a common Draft to everyone's benefit and for us to complete the design of an ML-DNS prototype implementation, i.e. a multi-layer, multi-prupose (intertechnology), multi-orthotypography IDNA2008 conformant front-end of the IDNA2008 stabilised Internet DNS. Among the points we noted there is the Bidi issue http://iucg.org/wiki/Bidi_discussion that you raised on 2/14/2010. Harald's response is at the IDNA2008 level (on the Internet side). The question now is to know how to address it at the use level: I would be interested in a description of the problem which could permit a solution at protocol, use or architural level. I thank you if you can help us. jfc At 22:55 07/08/2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >On 06/21/11 07:55, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote: >>Dear all, >>I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case: >>.. >This particular case has all labels legal, but the overall display >name will display very oddly (as noted). The oddity is caused by our >inability to mandate whole-domain tests, as described in the RFC. > >It is logical for the administrator of to forbid >registration of leading-numeric labels if it anticipates R2L labels >at the next level down, and it is logical for application writers to >simply reject such names because they are going to confuse the users >(much in the spirit of Firefox' refusal to do mixed-script names), >but the RFC does not require them to do so. > >>As you know in case r2l labels the display will be like this >>.. >I think the display will depend on the direction of and >whether it is in an RTL context or an LTR context, but I'm still not >confident of my ability to execute the BIDI algorithm in my head. >>As you see both of them have different display order which >>isn't the same as network order. >>And I know it is mentioned in the RFC >> >> >> >> Several stronger statements were considered and rejected, because >> >> they seem to be impossible to fulfill within the constraints of the >> >> Unicode bidirectional algorithm. >>And one of the statement is >> >> o The sequence of labels should be consistent with network order. >> This proved impossible -- a domain name consisting of the labels >> in network order) L1.R2.R3.L4 will be displayed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in >> an LTR context. (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as >> L4.R3.R2.L1) >> >> >> >> >>And I have tried two implemented tools (well I don't know if they >>follow the RFC fully or not). >> >> >>http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/idna.jsp?a=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#notes >> >>http://mct.verisign-grs.com/conversiontool/convertServlet?input=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9&type=UTF8 >> >> >>Abdulrahman, >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Idna-update mailing list >>Idna-update@alvestrand.no >>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update > >_______________________________________________ >Idna-update mailing list >Idna-update@alvestrand.no >http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update --=====================_264805753==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear Abdulrahman, dear Slim,

we try to consolidate all the post-IDNA2008 points that are now to be addressed at Internet technology level (including those with an impact on the protocols but belonging to the architectural level that we plan to consolidate further on). This mostly concerns inputs from IANA, IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, ITU, John Klensin, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Hoffman, Vint Cerf, etc. The target is to help them all to consistently work in being aware of all the issues and in using the same terms with the same meaning.

The current version of this compilation is at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

Once we have compiled all the potocol level issues we will propose all the concerned parties to consolidate them into a common Draft to everyone's benefit and for us to complete the design of an ML-DNS prototype implementation, i.e. a multi-layer, multi-prupose (intertechnology), multi-orthotypography IDNA2008 conformant  front-end of the IDNA2008 stabilised Internet DNS.

Among the points we noted there is the Bidi issue http://iucg.org/wiki/Bidi_discussion that you raised on 2/14/2010. Harald's response is at the IDNA2008 level (on the Internet side). The question now is to know how to address it at the use level: I would be interested in a description of the problem which could permit a solution at protocol, use or architural level.

I thank you if you can help us.
jfc


At 22:55 07/08/2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 06/21/11 07:55, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:
Dear all,
I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case:
<r2l chars><num1>.<num2>.<etc ..>
This particular case has all labels legal, but the overall display name will display very oddly (as noted). The oddity is caused by our inability to mandate whole-domain tests, as described in the RFC.

It is logical for the administrator of <etc ..> to forbid registration of leading-numeric labels if it anticipates R2L labels at the next level down, and it is logical for application writers to simply reject such names because they are going to confuse the users (much in the spirit of Firefox' refusal to do mixed-script names), but the RFC does not require them to do so.

As you know in case r2l labels the display will be like this
<etc..>.<num1>.<num2><r2l chars>
I think the display will depend on the direction of <etc> and whether it is in an RTL context or an LTR context, but I'm still not confident of my ability to execute the BIDI algorithm in my head.
As you see both of them have different display order which isn’t  the same as network order.
And I know it is mentioned in the RFC
 


   Several stronger statements were considered and
rejected, because


   they seem to be impossible to fulfill within the
constraints of
the


   Unicode bidirectional
algorithm.
 
And one of the statement is
 
  o  The sequence of labels should be consistent with network order.
      This proved impossible -- a domain name consisting of the labels
      in network order) L1.R2.R3.L4 will be displayed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in
      an LTR context.  (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as
      L4.R3.R2.L1)
 


 
 
And I have tried two implemented tools (well I don’t know if they follow the RFC fully or not).
 

http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/idna.jsp?a=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#notes

http://mct.verisign-grs.com/conversiontool/convertServlet?input=%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9&type=UTF8
 
 
Abdulrahman,



_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update@alvestrand.no

http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
--=====================_264805753==.ALT-- From aghadir@citc.gov.sa Wed Aug 10 01:44:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18BC21F85A7 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTfTY0CMAcxa for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.citc.gov.sa (mx2.citc.gov.sa [86.111.197.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66BA21F85B5 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAJFDQk4KAWQ9/2dsb2JhbABBgk2cVIdDgVyBQAEBAQEDAQEBKkELEAIBCBEEAQELHQcnCxQJCAEBBAENBQgBEodWvVKFZ18EglChJg X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6433"; a="2203947" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,349,1309726800"; d="scan'208,217";a="2203947" Received: from ry2cas1.citc.gov.sa ([10.1.100.61]) by mx2.citc.gov.sa with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2011 11:44:56 +0300 Received: from RY2MAIL2.citc.gov.sa ([fe80::25fe:d786:bf64:9b8f]) by ry2cas1.citc.gov.sa ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:44:56 +0300 From: "Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir" To: JFC Morfin , Slim Amamou Thread-Topic: mixing different direction labels within same domain Thread-Index: Acwv19erkNbeLGtKSb2SqZdDps5FIwlU1PqAACGXTwAAYYax0A== Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:44:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4E3EFBB7.9080809@alvestrand.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20110808121949.07245950@morfin.org> In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110808121949.07245950@morfin.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.1] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "arabic-vip@icann.org" , "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , "iucg@ietf.org" , Arabic Scripts IDNA Subject: Re: [iucg] mixing different direction labels within same domain X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 10 Aug 2011 08:44:39 -0000 --_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear JFC, Thank you for letting me in this I'll try to gather most of pointed issues = in IDNA and I'll try to send to you later hopefully! But have ever seen this proposed solution on improving the display of URI? http://www.unicode.org/review/pri185/ This solution has been pended waiting for any feeds on it so that they can = publish it, and I think this solution will solve most of confusing problems= in the display, yet it'll give us defending points on removing some limita= tions in the IDNA (hopefully!). Abdulrahman, From: idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestr= and.no] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin Sent: 8/Aug/2011 3:57 PM To: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir; Slim Amamou Cc: arabic-vip@icann.org; idna-update@alvestrand.no work; iucg@ietf.org; Ar= abic Scripts IDNA Subject: Re: mixing different direction labels within same domain Dear Abdulrahman, dear Slim, we try to consolidate all the post-IDNA2008 points that are now to be addre= ssed at Internet technology level (including those with an impact on the pr= otocols but belonging to the architectural level that we plan to consolidat= e further on). This mostly concerns inputs from IANA, IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008= , IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, ITU, John Klensi= n, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Hoffman, Vint Cerf, etc. The target is to help the= m all to consistently work in being aware of all the issues and in using th= e same terms with the same meaning. The current version of this compilation is at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Com= mon_Glossary. Once we have compiled all the potocol level issues we will propose all the = concerned parties to consolidate them into a common Draft to everyone's ben= efit and for us to complete the design of an ML-DNS prototype implementatio= n, i.e. a multi-layer, multi-prupose (intertechnology), multi-orthotypograp= hy IDNA2008 conformant front-end of the IDNA2008 stabilised Internet DNS. Among the points we noted there is the Bidi issue http://iucg.org/wiki/Bidi= _discussion that you raised on 2/14/2010. Harald's response is at the IDNA2= 008 level (on the Internet side). The question now is to know how to addres= s it at the use level: I would be interested in a description of the proble= m which could permit a solution at protocol, use or architural level. I thank you if you can help us. jfc At 22:55 07/08/2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 06/21/11 07:55, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote: Dear all, I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case: .. This particular case has all labels legal, but the overall display name wil= l display very oddly (as noted). The oddity is caused by our inability to m= andate whole-domain tests, as described in the RFC. It is logical for the administrator of to forbid registration of l= eading-numeric labels if it anticipates R2L labels at the next level down, = and it is logical for application writers to simply reject such names becau= se they are going to confuse the users (much in the spirit of Firefox' refu= sal to do mixed-script names), but the RFC does not require them to do so. As you know in case r2l labels the display will be like this .. I think the display will depend on the direction of and whether it is= in an RTL context or an LTR context, but I'm still not confident of my abi= lity to execute the BIDI algorithm in my head. As you see both of them have different display order which isn?t the same = as network order. And I know it is mentioned in the RFC Several stronger statements were considered and rejected, because they seem to be impossible to fulfill within the constraints of the Unicode bidirectional algorithm. And one of the statement is o The sequence of labels should be consistent with network order. This proved impossible -- a domain name consisting of the labels in network order) L1.R2.R3.L4 will be displayed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in an LTR context. (In an RTL context, it will be displayed as L4.R3.R2.L1) And I have tried two implemented tools (well I don?t know if they follow th= e RFC fully or not). http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/idna.jsp?a=3D%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.99= 9.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#notes http://mct.verisign-grs.com/conversiontool/convertServlet?input=3D%D8%B1%D8= %A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9&typ= e=3DUTF8 Abdulrahman, _______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update _______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- Disclaimer: This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain l= egally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please conta= ct the sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from= your system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any ot= her person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this= e-mail are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commun= ications and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for= damage caused by this email. --_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear JFC,

Thank you for letting me = in this I’ll try to gather most of pointed issues in IDNA and I’= ;ll try to send to you later hopefully!

 <= /p>

But have ever seen this p= roposed solution on improving the display of URI?

http://www.unicode.org/review/pri185/

This solution has been pe= nded waiting for any feeds on it so that they can publish it, and I think t= his solution will solve most of confusing problems in the display, yet it’ll give us defending points on removing some limitat= ions  in the IDNA (hopefully!).

 <= /p>

Abdulrahman,

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: idna-upd= ate-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin
Sent: 8/Aug/2011 3:57 PM
To: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir; Slim Amamou
Cc: arabic-vip@icann.org; idna-update@alvestrand.no work; iucg@ietf.= org; Arabic Scripts IDNA
Subject: Re: mixing different direction labels within same domain

 

Dear Abdulrahman, dear Slim,

we try to consolidate all the post-IDNA2008 points that are now to be addre= ssed at Internet technology level (including those with an impact on the pr= otocols but belonging to the architectural level that we plan to consolidat= e further on). This mostly concerns inputs from IANA, IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNI= CODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, ITU, John Klensin, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Hoffman, V= int Cerf, etc. The target is to help them all to consistently work in being= aware of all the issues and in using the same terms with the same meaning.

The current version of this compilation is at http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

Once we have compiled all the potocol level issues we will propose all the = concerned parties to consolidate them into a common Draft to everyone's ben= efit and for us to complete the design of an ML-DNS prototype implementatio= n, i.e. a multi-layer, multi-prupose (intertechnology), multi-orthotypography IDNA2008 conformant  front-e= nd of the IDNA2008 stabilised Internet DNS.

Among the points we noted there is the Bidi issue http://iucg.org/wiki/Bidi_discussion that you raised on 2/14/2010. Hara= ld's response is at the IDNA2008 level (on the Internet side). The question= now is to know how to address it at the use level: I would be interested i= n a description of the problem which could permit a solution at protocol, use or architural level.

I thank you if you can help us.
jfc


At 22:55 07/08/2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

On 06/21/11 07:55, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:

Dear all,
I am just wondering whenever it is permitted or not to have this case:
<r2l chars><num1>.<num2>.<etc ..>

This particular case has all labels legal, but the o= verall display name will display very oddly (as noted). The oddity is cause= d by our inability to mandate whole-domain tests, as described in the RFC.<= br>
It is logical for the administrator of <etc ..> to forbid registratio= n of leading-numeric labels if it anticipates R2L labels at the next level = down, and it is logical for application writers to simply reject such names= because they are going to confuse the users (much in the spirit of Firefox' refusal to do mixed-script names), b= ut the RFC does not require them to do so.


As you know in case r2l labels the display will be l= ike this
<etc..>.<num1>.<num2><r2l chars>

I think the display will depend on the direction of = <etc> and whether it is in an RTL context or an LTR context, but I'm = still not confident of my ability to execute the BIDI algorithm in my head.=

As you see both of th= em have different display order which isn?t  the same as network order= .
And I know it is mentioned in the RFC
 

   Several stronger statements were considered and
rejected, because

 

   they seem to be impossible to fulfill within the
constraints of
the

 

   Unicode bidirectional
algorithm.

 
And one of the statement is
 
  o  The sequence of labels should be consistent with network ord= er.
      This proved impossible -- a domain name cons= isting of the labels
      in network order) L1.R2.R3.L4 will be displa= yed as L1.R3.R2.L4 in
      an LTR context.  (In an RTL context, it= will be displayed as
      L4.R3.R2.L1)
 

 

 
And I have tried two implemented tools (well I don?t know if they follow th= e RFC fully or not).
 

http:/= /unicode.org/cldr/utility/idna.jsp?a=3D%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%= A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#notes

http://mct.verisign-grs.com/conversiontool/conver= tServlet?input=3D%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF888.999.%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D= 9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9&type=3DUTF8
 
 
Abdulrahman,

 
 
_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update@alvestrand.no=

http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-upd=
ate


_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update@alvestrand.no
http://ww= w.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain l= egally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please conta= ct the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from= your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any ot= her
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this= e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commun= ications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for= damage
caused by this email. --_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Aug 10 18:17:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D680121F84BF for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uy-2H5lczbKt for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229D521F84BC for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 143.168-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.168.143]:54359 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QrJtF-0004ee-29; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:16:53 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110811025803.066cc700@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 03:18:29 +0200 To: "Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir" , Slim Amamou From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <4E3EFBB7.9080809@alvestrand.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20110808121949.07245950@morfin.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_92779629==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: "arabic-vip@icann.org" , "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , "iucg@ietf.org" , Arabic Scripts IDNA Subject: Re: [iucg] mixing different direction labels within same domain X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 11 Aug 2011 01:17:01 -0000 --=====================_92779629==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:44 10/08/2011, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_" > >Dear JFC, >Thank you for letting me in this I'll try to gather most of pointed >issues in IDNA and I'll try to send to you later hopefully! > >But have ever seen this proposed solution on improving the display of URI? >http://www.unicode.org/review/pri185/ >This solution has been pended waiting for any feeds on it so that >they can publish it, and I think this solution will solve most of >confusing problems in the display, yet it'll give us defending >points on removing some limitations in the IDNA (hopefully!). > >Abdulrahman, Dear Abdulrahman, Thank you for your annouced help. I am looking for your contribution to add to our wiki consolidation. At this stage I am just trying to compile the post IDNA2008 problems people raise in various areas. And possibly the terminology which can be adequate to describe/address them among network operations and use oriented WGs and NGOs (ICANN, IETF, ITU, IUTF). This is for all these people to come with a simple, consistent, stable way to address them at protocol level and then be able to discuss with Unicode what they may need from them. In focusing first on the roots of the problems in his are, one may help others to identify a similar problem they were not aware until now. Thank you for quoting pri185: from it I am going to try to extract the problems they raise; in the way it impacts us. However, I am not familiar with Bidi. So I would prefer specialists to summarize the difficulties they meet and Unicode discusses. So, ICANN and other people might understand better, decide if they also are impacted and how to handle a possible difficulty they would have identified this way in their own bailiwick. Best! jfc --=====================_92779629==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 10:44 10/08/2011, Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="_000_E393942FC3AB7F4C9C50F559E9E4E45F13AE6518ry2mail2citcgov_"

Dear JFC,
Thank you for letting me in this I’ll try to gather most of pointed issues in IDNA and I’ll try to send to you later hopefully!
 
But have ever seen this proposed solution on improving the display of URI?
http://www.unicode.org/review/pri185/
This solution has been pended waiting for any feeds on it so that they can publish it, and I think this solution will solve most of confusing problems in the display, yet it’ll give us defending points on removing some limitations  in the IDNA (hopefully!).
 
Abdulrahman,

Dear Abdulrahman,

Thank you for your annouced help. I am looking for your contribution to add to our wiki consolidation.

At this stage I am just trying to compile the post IDNA2008 problems people raise in various areas. And possibly the terminology which can be adequate to describe/address them among network operations and use oriented WGs and NGOs (ICANN, IETF, ITU, IUTF). This is for all these people to come with a simple, consistent, stable way to address them at protocol level and then be able to discuss with Unicode what they may need from them. In focusing first on the roots of the problems in his are, one may help others to identify a similar problem they were not aware until now.

Thank you for quoting pri185: from it I am going to try to extract the problems they raise; in the way it impacts us. However, I am not familiar with Bidi. So I would prefer specialists to summarize the difficulties they meet and Unicode discusses. So, ICANN and other people might understand better, decide if they also are impacted and how to handle a possible difficulty they would have identified this way in their own bailiwick.

Best!
jfc
--=====================_92779629==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Aug 14 19:08:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E0D11E80AC for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: <3AV0qLbW9Q0Z> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.393, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AV0qLbW9Q0Z for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243DF11E808A for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 188.73-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.73.188]:52223 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qsmbi-00081p-PI; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:08:51 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110815040939.061f2e88@jefsey.com> Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110815003253.061f2ab0@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 04:10:43 +0200 To: iucg@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin 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: Re: [iucg] Matthew's Idea for IPv4 addition or extension X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:08:12 -0000 At 20:31 14/08/2011, wrote: >I know this is in response to an old email but I wanted to send this >to you since you appear to be very well informed on the matter of the >stat of the Internet. I am not really "well informed". I only wish to have a common sense vision of the Internet as something of pragmatic use for the people's communications and relations. That leads me to approach the technology as a lead/intelligent user of Internet ressources and among these ressources of the IETF deliverables. FYI: - a lead user is someone who has the capacity to adapt his/her internet environment to his/her own needs. - an intelligent user is someone what has the capacity to draught on the technological convergence to intelligently adapt his/her digital ecosystem environment to his/her own needs. In the "intelligent" case; the term may be understood at three level: - inter-ligare, i.e. to interlink (to be in good intelligence with) - inter-legere, i.e. to actually read the network/technology and understand how it is built (to know like in CIA) - inter-elegere, i.e. to chose in the smartest way what one has understood of the map/model of what is interlinked. In this capacity I am not much interested in IPv6 as such, which something that concerns ISPs. I am interested in IDv6, i.e. the capacity for the user to use 64 bit local addresses of global scope transparently (on the user side) with IPv4, IPv6 and different IPv6 and or IPv4 multi-ISP scenarii. I am not currently focusing on IDv6 because I need to experiment my use in a user side architecture I am trying to assemble. The interest I have is primarily in the DNS because it is independent from addresses. This is part of my work on the ML-DNS (i.e. a multilayered use of the DNS) where the IDv6 sub-adress can be passed as a domain name label. My other lines of interest are with Fred Baker (Cisco) proposition RFC 6296 and Dino Farinacci's LISP proposition. I feel the http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02 ID is the latest summary of the proposition and lists all the other on-going drafts. As far as I understand LISP is transparent to IPv6 too. There could be additional possibilities in using an independent numbering plan, but I understand ITU dropped the idea and the IETF made ICANN in charge of the whole thing for the time being (i.e. as long as the USA claim to have some control on the Internet, what they do not if you read the Internet as the International Network of the whole digital ecosystem). My feeling from my previous international network renumbering (X.121 in 1983/86) solutions like these are the best way to support transitions if they are to happen (I am not so sure) or parallel operations because they do not deny the larger numbering plan (IPv6), but make it sort of virtual. So you can use it, but you do not need to implement it before you are sure you have to. >The way I see IPv6 is a lot of organizations are going to be >scrambling in the end to avoid being part of an IPv6 black-hole, and >IPv6 only customers (once IPv4 is exhausted) will be part of an IPv4 >black-hole to the parts of the Internet that haven't migrated. > >Basically, 2 Internets. So why isn't/wasn't anyone thinking to keep >IPv4 compatibility when they created the IPv6 solution?!? Same response as why did they make DNs ASCII only, why did they not support a presentation layer, why did they suppressed the IETF "Internet users area", etc. >I'm an engineer in the field and when I worked for a service provider >they were just starting to adopt v6 last year, and now at my current >company I have gotten an allocation from ARIN but no one in the >organization wants to move on it since they don't see the need. (I >know it's my job to make them see the need but that means lots of >others will not be making the move anytime soon.) The need is not for IPv6. The need is for what IPv6 may permit: billions of globally adressable sub-addresses. The same as the DNS however with or without the DNS and its evolution. The interest for your organization is to get the Internet support they need, including billions of globally addressable sub-adresses if they need it. Then to consider how to get that in the most secure, simple and stables manner. Best. jfc From jmabdp@gmail.com Fri Aug 19 11:33:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF4B11E80A3; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:33:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.32 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UgeUubusG1Pq; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F2011E80A1; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so1239385yxj.31 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iDgkaoFQwOxceOXos4NScG8uhr8bMtGXBK3GKGVTcqI=; b=fNlm/7MQq5swSvEsapNMuj0019iibP+vb7wgeuwrVpLLWRdCg5NXmauZ6NZD81iZ0v DYXov3rt6g2UE2JNrXjbVvKO8VPGuU0zEpgOXQRlIL/p8hbZdEbjeBWfMsUbw5wx9Yk3 Z7PgKCDuLUHkcW2IMFXisOU3Z6x3vfM19epyg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.161.227 with SMTP id w63mr451207yhk.57.1313778883754; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.30.34 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:34:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc To: IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc Cc: vip@icann.org, IDNA update work , internet users contributing group , happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org Subject: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 19 Aug 2011 18:33:50 -0000 --20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol and technology adaptations in different areas. Several mailing lists are working on such adaptations. There is a need they know the others' targets and they use the same terminology with the same meaning. To that end we have compiled charters and drafts, terminology definitions and propositions from the different souces involved: IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, IANA and Unicode. The file is http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary. At this stage we would like to continue compiling suggestions to add to this document in order to have a comprehensive consolidation of ideas and terms. Once inputs are stabilized, I will sort all the terms towards an update of the IANA terminology file. I hope it could help reaching consensuses more easily if we speak the same language. Portzamparc --20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol and technology = adaptations in different areas. Several mailing lists are working on such a= daptations. There is a need they know the others' targets and they use = the same terminology with the same meaning.

To that end we have compiled charters and drafts, terminology definitio= ns and propositions from the different souces involved: IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA20= 08, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, IANA and Unico= de. The file is http:= //iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary.

At this stage we would like to continue compiling suggestions to add to= this document in order to have a comprehensive consolidation of ideas and = terms. Once inputs are stabilized, I will sort all the terms towards an upd= ate of the IANA terminology file. I hope it could help reaching consensuses= more easily if we speak the same language.

Portzamparc
--20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc-- From jmabdp@gmail.com Fri Aug 19 16:29:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86E621F8BB5; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:29:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AOppMIyQVDKQ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD7F21F8BB3; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so2969607gxk.31 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bDtZ87gCGU5Ld0SX4Z51Vhzy4vLLw+qH27l4v4RpR5M=; b=Le5uOTPgLV57apMcuTvk+07U/tCLIpcA65kpEzyi0rZE4J+dLUGgIwhLIxgzUgFLIT 5VJFSCEsdhU/t5DqadVlDXuTY0FLwLNX/uhfLpOtGCGLj2nULohiJ1zZG1+TA0WLIGvt XvrUieV8j5nYz2pI0L96BsAZIMXqI44gOZW4U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.195.73 with SMTP id o49mr2317287yhn.23.1313796633300; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.30.34 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:30:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> References: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 01:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc To: John C Klensin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70 Cc: IETF , precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work , internet users contributing group , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 19 Aug 2011 23:29:37 -0000 --20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Mr. Klensin, "we" are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There are three ways one can do it: - in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community. - in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protect ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our community. - in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work with our outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? Please read the begining of your mail. We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that it had to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual's and ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefsey will soon be alone! Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to work in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able to answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way, also with other open works? This being said you perfectly know that this 2011/8/19 John C Klensin > without any specific > attribution or acknowledgment. Those materials include several > RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. is wrong. Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, we try to draft a pertinent mail to you! > I am an author or major > contributor on several of those. Especially since I had asked > earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in > other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carried. Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you did not consider yet. Portzamparc BTW I am not French, I am Breton! --20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Mr. Klensin,

"we" are Internet and IETF users. This m= akes a pretty large community. There are three ways one can do it:

-= in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community.<= br> - in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protec= t ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our commu= nity.
- in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work w= ith our outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? = Please read the begining of your mail.

We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that i= t had to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual= 9;s and ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefs= ey will soon be alone!

Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to= work in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able = to answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way= , also with other open works?


This being said you perfectly know that this

2011/8/19 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
without any specific
attribution or acknowledgment. =A0Those materials include several
RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. =A0

is wrong. = Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, we try to = draft a pertinent mail to you!
=A0
I am an author or major
contributor on several of those. =A0Especially since I had asked
earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in
other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate,
<= div>
This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carri= ed.
Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you = did not consider yet.

Portzamparc

BTW I am not French, I am Breton!

=





--20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70-- From mfberny@gmail.com Fri Aug 19 17:20:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58D821F8B21; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m3tKNboOaOnS; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCF321F8745; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12so2989493yie.31 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:21:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SSrJxSjUJSjWqKO0GuXt75BvOAQ/rTt0k70PZsJ5Mcc=; b=N/ekk7QVkR8oDapgT0n7Yn0cUwfG1I7IaWo7oTj4E4H3INGClgvWj95hAQP8uhH6wQ yG8rUU8cgSfT1JibucWSQsAKVPTr8Mn9KqP6Dz84yk7tRr8BKgw/VKCYcXefodGCXeMf SJcqKlUghKUN0qewlkCmxZmSEq/079Gzf+ha0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.154.199 with SMTP id h47mr2317008yhk.81.1313799699543; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.138.164 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 02:21:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marie-France Berny To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7 Cc: IETF , happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, IDNA update work , John C Klensin , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:20:44 -0000 --20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi! John, This seems to be a pretty odd point of yours! As if every IETF mail had to list the copyrights of every text or concept it works on or with. We only are interested in an adequate and coherent multilinguistic terminology at the IANA. At the end of the day if you want to publish it under your name you welcome. I introduced what I hope will close this: WIKI RFC 3271 with an appropriate comment. http://idna2010.org The text John Klensin refers to is the working wiki page: *IDNS Common Glossary * Marie-France 2011/8/20 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc > Dear Mr. Klensin, > > "we" are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. > There are three ways one can do it: > > - in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community. > - in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to > protect ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our > community. > - in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work with our > outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? Please > read the begining of your mail. > > We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that it > had to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual's and > ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefsey will soon > be alone! > > Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to > work in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able to > answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way, > also with other open works? > > > This being said you perfectly know that this > > 2011/8/19 John C Klensin > >> without any specific >> attribution or acknowledgment. Those materials include several >> RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. > > > is wrong. Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, > we try to draft a pertinent mail to you! > > >> I am an author or major >> contributor on several of those. Especially since I had asked >> earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in >> other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, > > > This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carried. > Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you did not > consider yet. > > Portzamparc > > BTW I am not French, I am Breton! > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > > --20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! John,
This seems to be a pretty odd point of yours!=A0 As if every IETF mail had = to=20 list the copyrights of every text or concept it works on or with.

We only are interested in an adequate and coherent multilinguistic terminol= ogy at the IANA. At=20 the end of the day if you want to publish it under your name you=20 welcome.

I introduced what I hope will close this: WIKI RFC 3271 with an appropriate= comment.

http://idna2010.org
The text John Klensin refers to is the working wiki page:

IDNS Common Glossary


Marie-France

2011/8/20 jean-michel bernie= r de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Klensin,

"we" are = Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There are thr= ee ways one can do it:

- in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our commun= ity.
- in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protec= t ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our commu= nity.
- in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work w= ith our outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? = Please read the begining of your mail.

We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that i= t had to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual= 9;s and ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefs= ey will soon be alone!

Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to= work in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able = to answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way= , also with other open works?


This being said you perfectly know that this

2011/8/19 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
without any specific
attribution or acknowledgment. =A0Those materials include several
RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. =A0

is w= rong. Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, we t= ry to draft a pertinent mail to you!
=A0
I am an author or major
contributor on several of those. =A0Especially since I had asked
earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in
other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate,
<= /div>

This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be= carried.
Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real need= s you did not consider yet.

Portzamparc

BTW I am not French, I am Breton!

=






_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg


--20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7-- From john-ietf@jck.com Fri Aug 19 13:37:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BD411E80D5; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AmnfPlVO22jr; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE2E11E80C6; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QuVpf-000NLX-Dj; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:38:23 -0400 X-Vipre-Scanned: 0061E3E00027E30061E52D-TDI Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:38:22 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc Message-ID: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:51:21 -0700 Cc: IETF , precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work , internet users contributing group , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 19 Aug 2011 20:37:31 -0000 --On Friday, August 19, 2011 20:34 +0200 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: > IDNA2008 has introduced the need for post IDNA2008 protocol > and technology adaptations in different areas. Several mailing > lists are working on such adaptations. There is a need they > know the others' targets and they use the same terminology > with the same meaning. > To that end we have compiled charters and drafts, terminology > definitions and propositions from the different souces > involved: IAB, IETF/WG/IDNA2008, IETF/WG/PRECIS, ICANN/WG/VIP, > UNICODE, IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, IANA and Unicode. The file is > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary. >... I'm sorry, but I've had enough of this. I hesitate to admit that I have read far enough into that document to have noticed, lest by doing so I add credibility to it. However, I observed that it contains rather large blocks of text excerpted from other materials without any specific attribution or acknowledgment. Those materials include several RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. I am an author or major contributor on several of those. Especially since I had asked earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, but incorporate the definitions themselves only by reference, this appears to be a willful and deliberate violation of copyrights held by the IETF Trust and of my copyrights. The published IETF Trust terms require explicit licenses for this type of reuse of non-code elements of RFCs; these definitions are not code. Those rules either apply to I-Ds as well or you need permission from the I-D authors for non-IETF uses. I, at least, have not given that permission. I believe the material on your web page also infringes the copyrights of others, but they will have to speak for themselves. The Trustees of the IETF Trust and other rights-holders will need to speak for themselves but, at least for materials in which I have rights under relevant copyright law, please consider this a request to take the document down and to do so immediately. I also request that you supply addresses for IUCG, IUTF, ALFA, and for yourself and any other individuals or organizations that are included by reference in your use of "we" in the statement "To that end we have compiled..." so that copyright holders who believe that the document infringes their rights can have legal documents delivered and served should they so desire. Thank you. John Klensin p.s. if this note falls into the hands of any attorneys with appropriate credentials to practice intellectual property law in France who would be interested in pursuing an action in this matter for a portion of any proceeds (the balance to go to charity) should contact me. From hsantos@santronics.com Fri Aug 19 17:15:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7171A21F855D for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:15:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5bTzsTLCad7O for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop3.winserver.com (mail.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104A121F856B for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=santronics.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=3161; t=1313799111; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=N1Az8cB vjCLdYlCVOyppYsSW9e0=; b=yE2e7GBeYycKx9uNCrKUq+g/uoLbDV+F5SUz05c +LtfYzTLygpvKBs3WvyifdUHl60ggHI7VevoUxlmJ7EkJnMgSIUtCYRJcZ0fckKD 9cWJsUXJNQBFSzS9bR2xYOgOGjNxJOX893Yys6BjJzh4MbTvB7RwGNOpfQXNqsjP EJhM= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.4.454.1) for iucg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:11:51 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([99.3.147.93]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v6.4.454.1) with ESMTP id 2254539604.24065.5944; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:11:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4E4EFB82.8050400@santronics.com> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:10:42 -0400 From: Hector Santos Organization: Santronics Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc References: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:51:21 -0700 Cc: IETF , happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, IDNA update work , internet users contributing group , John C Klensin , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:15:06 -0000 Not commenting of the legal stuff, I have to admit I like the idea of the Glossary web site with the consolidation of divest material. I thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional, but overall for such a divest environment on the Internet, the basic Glossary idea was interesting that I found to be informational. I think it will gives people, especially for the new, a better sense of the global connected nature of the various groups. If anything, there was an initial perception of commercial interest, but that didn't seem to be the case. But your email was definitely presented that way or at least its how I read it for a person who didn't know much about all these groups. Maybe didn't help if that was not the intent. Anyway, I hope the "legal" stuff can be settled. It would be a resource link for me. jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: > Dear Mr. Klensin, > > "we" are Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There > are three ways one can do it: > > - in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our community. > - in hacking the internet from the outside on behalf of our right to protect > ourselves from digital ecosystem pollution risks. Small part of our > community. > - in trying to cooperate with you guys and help your inside work with our > outside perspective. Microscopic part of our community. Guess why? Please > read the begining of your mail. > > We do it because Jefsey convinced a few of us and the IETF Chair that it had > to be tried. However, if the inside Internet is made of individual's and > ISOC's copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefsey will soon > be alone! > > Please respond: the ball is your field. Tell me: are we wrong trying to work > in the open, liaise with the IETF and carry a lot of work to be able to > answer you, the happiana, the PRECIS, the VIP people in a consistant way, > also with other open works? > > > This being said you perfectly know that this > > 2011/8/19 John C Klensin > >> without any specific >> attribution or acknowledgment. Those materials include several >> RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. > > > is wrong. Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, > we try to draft a pertinent mail to you! > > >> I am an author or major >> contributor on several of those. Especially since I had asked >> earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in >> other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, > > > This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carried. > Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you did not > consider yet. > > Portzamparc > > BTW I am not French, I am Breton! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com From jfc@morfin.org Sat Aug 20 04:29:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEF021F8876; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:29:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.142 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.458, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQPf1M5tYSqX; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFD021F8862; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:61857 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qujjn-0006I4-HL; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:29:17 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110820125644.06fac130@morfin.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:31:16 +0200 To: Hector Santos , jean-michel bernier de portzamparc From: "J-F C. Morfin" In-Reply-To: <4E4EFB82.8050400@santronics.com> References: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> <4E4EFB82.8050400@santronics.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 - morfin.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: IETF , precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work , internet users contributing group , John C Klensin , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:29:29 -0000 At 02:10 20/08/2011, Hector Santos wrote: >I have to admit I like the idea of the Glossary web site with the >consolidation of divest material. Hector, complexity is often confused with complication which further adds to complexity. The most usual complication comes from the use of ill located notions irt of their supporting concepts (i.e. absolute mental pollution) and the use of the same terms with different meanings (relative mental pollution). So, any work, should start in adopting a common glossary. This is usually helped by the Charter. However, the post-IDNA2008 era calls for many people to adapt their reading of old protocols and in turn adapt protocols to the resulting new possibilities (new meanings for old terms, new terminologies). This goes beyond what a Charter can do. >I thought it had some awkward reading injection of material that >probably was not necessary, maybe little unprofessional, IUCG is not for professional engineers, but for involved users :-) A liaison between two worlds who are somewhat suspicious of the other.... >but overall for such a divest environment on the Internet, the basic >Glossary idea was interesting that I found to be informational. I >think it will gives people, especially for the new, a better sense >of the global connected nature of the various groups. Right now the list includes 772 definitions. It would be extraordinary if there were no conflicts, doublons, needed updates. The first part is more complex to summarize. IAB partly engaged in a parallel work. >If anything, there was an initial perception of commercial interest, >but that didn't seem to be the case. I would be interested in knowing why do you get that feeling? IUCG is a response to RFC 3869 calls for help: "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward.". It is a place for non-commercial private sponsors to bring their experience and possible expertise to contribute to basic and more ofter applied research relating to the Internet. >But your email was definitely presented that way or at least its how >I read it for a person who didn't know much about all these >groups. Maybe didn't help if that was not the intent. >Anyway, I hope the "legal" stuff can be settled. It would be a >resource link for me. I use to say "I do not ask my phone to be democratic or legal, I ask it to work". We worked out the IDNA2008 consensus by the end of 2010 and nothing has moved yet on the IETF/IAB side. On the "JEDI"s side we have advanced towards prototyping an IUI (Intelligent/Internet Use Interface) as a prerequisite for a documentation. However, we also see that we are blocked by the IETF's and Unicode's lacks of simplicity (RFC 3439). So, we have to start back at the fundamental gloassary "simplicity point" for everyone. Moreover than we have to be at least pluri-lingual. At the same time we are hampered by the ISOC's copyrights. Responses of IAB to my post-IDNA2008 appeal for clarification, made clear that our area (Intelligent Use Interface) is actually outside of the IETF scope, but interacts with it. This alllows to explore that area as being public domain, but if we want to technically keep in touch (the very nature of an interface) we have to interact with the IETF copyrighted world. Otherwise we certainly could hack the Internet and turn the JEDIs into some Anonymous. We might go faster, but network stability would be endangered. jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Aug 20 16:05:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD5E21F862F; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_ALMOST_SEX=3.114, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wz+38RGJGS+b; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AD721F8620; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:63917 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QuucK-0000UP-W5; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:06:17 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821003129.0da01218@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:08:29 +0200 To: "John C Klensin" From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_337516930==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: IETF Discussion , happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: [iucg] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:05:21 -0000 --=====================_337516930==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear John, If I supported the IDNA2008 consensus it was because it suited my vision of the Internet architecture. This was a surprise. This meant that it was possible to read as the two faces of the same coin * the 2011 "inside Internet" that the IETF influences and documents. IANA glossary, PRECIS propositions * and the 2011 "outside Internet encapsulation" that we, its users, want to intelligently utilize . ICANN/WG/VIP, IUCG. Actually as the two sides of a smart interface that I call the IUI as: * the Internet Use Interface on its Internet side. * the Intelligent Use Interface on the User's side, because the IUI can also interface the same user with other technologies that will converge at the IUI. As you know this vision of mine raised two main problems:(1) where to document the IUI and (2) the need to experiment in order to correctly document it. ---- 1. My appeals to the IESG and IAB permitted the IETF to answer the first question. The IESG proposed for me to run a BOF about what it considered as research, but the IAB made it clear that the IETF was concerned but that it was not in its bailiwick. My evaluation is that the IUI is an "IUser" (Internet/Intelligent/independent, etc. user) community issue. This community of identified users, should be liaised with the IETF. I use the IUCG for that and the help/support/ideas of its small team. ---- 2. The particular IUI architecture that I investigate is in line with the architecture that I use, support, and have deployed for more than thirty years. 2.1. It is based on my extended systems understanding of: * the way systems, diversity, complexity, and simplicity are articulated (much in tune with the three basic principles of the Internet architecture: constant change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 3439), and subsidiarity (as this results from the IDNA2008 architecture, once addressed the architecturally wrong location of IDNA in applications instead of at the IUI). * the particular case of communications where transmitted contents use static metadata in telecoms, metadata contained in the packet in datacommunications like the Internet, and separated metadata in what I call the metacommunications. IDNA2008 the way it implements the presentation layer in the Internet is at the border with metacoms. 2.2. From experience (Tymnet Extended Services), I think the location of the metacoms support is to be on the user side so that it is transparent to the network use. This is the Internet PLUS architecture, i.e. plugged additional OSEX layers (Extended OSI) on the user side. This layers can also be faked in a centralized manner, and result in the "+" approach: e.g. Google+. 2.3. The way IDNA2008 is designed calls for two necessary moves: * to use the DNS to deliver network oriented metadata, hence by synergy in order to, most probably, probably use DDDS registries for intersem (semantic internet layers above) referent data management and an IPv6 like registry addressing. In any case JTC1/SG32/WG2 is to be carefully considered and I miss the time for that. * a total separation from the Unicode typography that is not able to easily cope with network use requirements and to support human oriented algorithms. This separation does not need to be repudiation. However, the Internet MUST be supported by a network/human oriented universal semiotic system. I think it can start with a graphic (passive) and then a dynamic sign oriented approach in CLASS 0, as a common safe support of the other classes above, including the IN class. ----- 3. The danger of what we found and in such architecture is that it actually is the Internet technology architecture. There is not a single change in the existing RFCs or in a single bit in the existing protocols that is needed. However, there are a lot of opportunities for adjustments and, at the same time, there is major pressure being imposed on the whole architecture and on in particular on the ML-DNS (i.e. an IDNA2008 compliant encapsulation of the DNS). This pressure is the gTLD project of ICANN with its gTLD fee and delays. This may lead to a lot of individual architectural "tunings" to evade ICANN or to protect ICANN; in addition to these "adjustments", such as PRECIS. ----- 4. My first idea was to use the notoriety of ICANN's plans and Google Public DNS to experiment IDNA2008 compliant free gTLDs (like Projet.FRA). Then to proceed from there on, before anyone could try to make a business of it. A quick and dirty move to force everyone to understand where we are, how weak the Internet is IRT the market and sponsors, make people integrate diversity into their network thinking process. For personal reasons you know I was not able to dedicate myself to this. At the same time, I did better explore as to what the very initial visions of the Internet actually brought. Not only the "networking group", but others too. There is a solution I wish to try to revive, if possible in parallel (partial code integration). However, if that solution has been disregarded it is probably because of the complication that the IETF has reached. So the priority for me is to clarify and simplify the model. You already did a lot with IDNA2008, but it is not enough as we stayed (Charter) within the IDNA concept. We have to come back to fundamentals. The Internet MUST be considered from the outside as a unique and simple system (service black box) that is able to support several, and more or less equivalent architectures, on the user side. I agree with John Day: we miss an Internet OS. To implement it calls for a clearer and coherent technical culture. The internet tomography is still to be done. The earthquake is the RFC 5895. It is from there that we need to proceed. In two directions: 4.1. to think, accommodate, test, and deploy a simpler, clearer, etc. Internet of today, i.e. multilingual and semiotic ready (support of passive [as today] but also active and localized content). 4.2. to make sure that the "patches" being discussed in parallel do not conflict and block that innovation. My understanding (bet?) is that, as usual, the single point of simplicity to obtain this is for everyone to use the same language and for the concepts underlying that that language to be open enough so they permit to clearly spell out the "post IDNA2008 possible". This is why I engaged the IUCG to compile all the data, ideas, demands, confusion, etc. on multilingualization (i.e. architectural linguistic neutrality) that are discussed. We are probably still missing many things currently, but we have compiled 73 dense pages. ---- Your misunderstanding about the way we use wikis (as a quickly visible to all mailing archives, that can be translated in the MindMap), has led me to work this afternoon for you. And to build the next step. This still is NOT a document; this is only a next phase IUse community working wiki, located at http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary. This is rough stuff. My intent is to digest it through a clear network ontology and model (ontography) and tune it until its coherent with what the Internet IS and what our IUI MUST be. So that it can become a reference glossary. Obviously, there will be parts that do not belong to the IETF area, but to the IUTF area (the emerging IUse technical TF). That is because of our IUse center of the world is not your IETF/Unicode center of the world. However, we need our common world to entually be unique even if all this takes time to think, adjust; set-up. This is why I am making the place of that work visible to well-intentioned people and why I give my deep thanks to those who help. jfc --=====================_337516930==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear John,

If I supported the IDNA2008 consensus it was because it suited my vision of the Internet architecture. This was a surprise. This meant that it was possible to read as the two faces of the same coin
* the 2011 "inside Internet" that the IETF influences and documents. IANA glossary, PRECIS propositions
* and the 2011 "outside Internet encapsulation" that we, its users, want to intelligently utilize . ICANN/WG/VIP, IUCG.

Actually as the two sides of a smart interface that I call the IUI as:
* the Internet Use Interface on its Internet side.
* the Intelligent Use Interface on the User's side, because the IUI can also interface the same user with other technologies that will converge at the IUI.

As you know this vision of mine raised two main problems:(1) where to document the IUI and (2) the need to experiment in order to correctly document it.

----

1. My appeals to the IESG and IAB permitted the IETF to answer the first question. The IESG proposed for me to run a BOF about what it considered as research, but the IAB made it clear that the IETF was concerned but that it was not in its bailiwick.

My evaluation is that the IUI is an "IUser" (Internet/Intelligent/independent, etc. user) community issue. This community of identified users, should be liaised with the IETF. I use the IUCG for that and the help/support/ideas of its small team.

----

2. The particular IUI architecture that I investigate is in line with the architecture that I use, support, and have deployed for more than thirty years.

2.1. It is based on my extended systems understanding of:

*  the way systems, diversity, complexity, and simplicity are articulated (much in tune with the three basic principles of the Internet architecture: constant change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 3439), and subsidiarity (as this results from the IDNA2008 architecture, once addressed the architecturally wrong location of IDNA in applications instead of at the IUI).

* the particular case of communications where transmitted contents use static metadata in telecoms, metadata contained in the packet in datacommunications like the Internet, and separated metadata in what I call the metacommunications. IDNA2008 the way it implements the presentation layer in the Internet is at the border with metacoms.

2.2. From experience (Tymnet Extended Services), I think the location of the metacoms support is to be on the user side so that it is transparent to the network use. This is the Internet PLUS architecture, i.e. plugged additional OSEX layers (Extended OSI) on the user side. This layers can also be faked in a centralized manner, and result in the "+" approach: e.g. Google+.

2.3. The way IDNA2008 is designed calls for two necessary moves:

* to use the DNS to deliver network oriented metadata, hence by synergy in order to, most probably, probably use DDDS registries for intersem (semantic internet layers above) referent data management and an IPv6 like registry addressing. In any case JTC1/SG32/WG2 is to be carefully considered and I miss the time for that.

* a total separation from the Unicode typography that is not able to easily cope with network use requirements and to support human oriented algorithms. This separation does not need to be repudiation. However, the Internet MUST be supported by a network/human oriented universal semiotic system. I think it can start with a graphic (passive) and then a dynamic sign oriented approach in CLASS 0, as a common safe support of the other classes above, including the IN class.

-----

3. The danger of what we found and in such architecture is that it actually is the Internet technology architecture. There is not a single change in the existing RFCs or in a single bit in the existing protocols that is needed. However, there are a lot of opportunities for adjustments and, at the same time, there is major pressure being imposed on the whole architecture and on in particular on the ML-DNS (i.e. an IDNA2008 compliant encapsulation of the DNS). This pressure is the gTLD project of ICANN with its gTLD fee and delays. This may lead to a lot of individual architectural "tunings" to evade ICANN or to protect ICANN; in addition to these "adjustments", such as PRECIS.

-----

4. My first idea was to use the notoriety of ICANN's plans and Google Public DNS to experiment IDNA2008 compliant free gTLDs (like Projet.FRA). Then to proceed from there on, before anyone could try to make a business of it. A quick and dirty move to force everyone to understand where we are, how weak the Internet is IRT the market and sponsors, make people integrate diversity into their network thinking process. For personal reasons you know I was not able to dedicate myself to this. At the same time, I did better explore as to what the very initial visions of the Internet actually brought. Not only the "networking group", but others too.

There is a solution I wish to try to revive, if possible in parallel (partial code integration). However, if that solution has been disregarded it is probably because of the complication that the IETF has reached. So the priority for me is to clarify and simplify the model. You already did a lot with IDNA2008, but it is not enough as we stayed (Charter) within the IDNA concept. We have to come back to fundamentals.

The Internet MUST be considered from the outside as a unique and simple system (service black box) that is able to support several, and more or less equivalent architectures, on the user side. I agree with John Day: we miss an Internet OS. To implement it calls for a clearer and coherent technical culture. The internet tomography is still to be done.

The earthquake is the RFC 5895. It is from there that we need to proceed. In two directions:

4.1. to think, accommodate, test, and deploy a simpler, clearer, etc. Internet of today, i.e. multilingual and semiotic ready (support of passive [as today] but also active and localized content).

4.2. to make sure that the "patches" being discussed in parallel do not conflict and block that innovation.

My understanding (bet?) is that, as usual, the single point of simplicity to obtain this is for everyone to use the same language and for the concepts underlying that that language to be open enough so they permit to clearly spell out the "post IDNA2008 possible".

This is why I engaged the IUCG to compile all the data, ideas, demands, confusion, etc. on multilingualization (i.e. architectural linguistic neutrality) that are discussed. We are probably still missing many things currently, but we have compiled 73 dense pages.

----

Your misunderstanding about the way we use wikis (as a quickly visible to all mailing archives, that can be translated in the MindMap), has led me to work this afternoon for you. And to build the next step. This still is NOT a document; this is only a next phase IUse community working wiki, located at http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary. This is rough stuff. My intent is to digest it through a clear network ontology and model (ontography) and tune it until its coherent with what the Internet IS and what our IUI MUST be. So that it can become a reference glossary.

Obviously, there will be parts that do not belong to the IETF area, but to the IUTF area (the emerging IUse technical TF). That is because of our IUse center of the world is not your IETF/Unicode center of the world. However, we need our common world to entually be unique even if all this takes time to think, adjust; set-up. This is why I am making the place of that work visible to well-intentioned people and why I give my deep thanks to those who help.

jfc --=====================_337516930==.ALT-- From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Sat Aug 20 20:24:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC4721F8593; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:24:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id METDR6gzIqWP; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E865E21F8560; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 000B31ECB41D; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:24:49 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: jefsey Message-ID: <20110821032449.GA39963@shinkuro.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821003129.0da01218@jefsey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821003129.0da01218@jefsey.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:59:36 -0700 Cc: IETF Discussion , precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , iucg@ietf.org, John C Klensin , vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [precis] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 21 Aug 2011 03:24:06 -0000 Dear colleagues, I did not read the rest of the message past what I quote below, becase it did not seem to me that the structure of the message would answer the question I pose. Therefore, I make a request: On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:08:29AM +0200, jefsey wrote: > However, the Internet MUST be supported by a > network/human oriented universal semiotic system. I would like a defence of that claim. Speaking entirely personally, I don't believe it. We shape our technology, but our technology also shapes us. There is nothing intrinsic about "green" meaning "go". There is nothing about the universe that causes time zones (which is different from saying "differences in the apparent time of dawn and dusk"). Yet we all, techno-literate that we are, take these bits of cultural dreck and make them true. Moreover, we adjust to them -- somehow finding it more convenient to say, "Darkness falls earlier," than to say, "The time on the clock is wrong." It is, in my personal opinion, completely foolish to imagine that Internet names -- which are, by their nature at the time of registration and lookup, even if not for the user, completely devoid of cultural context -- can ever be made completely user-centric. Users will have to learn some things, and some of those things will be "Internet names are a little different, & have strange restrictive rules." More importantly, while I am not one of those people in the thrall of the conceptual scheme (cf. Davidson), I think it is preposterous to suggest that we will come up with a universal semiotic system given the limitations of the DNS and the way that denoting works in different linguistic traditions. I believe we can come up with some useful conventions that will work most of the time, for most people. I believe that these will strain the rules of every writing system on the planet, in much the way that "ns1" strains English writing rules. I am incredulous at the suggestion that the Internet needs a "network/human oriented universal semiotic system," both because I don't believe it and because I believe that humans (and especially human language) are much more resilient than that. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 22 08:30:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28BA21F8B2D for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E4 hex): To: Patrik F\344ltstr\366m ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D90121F8B2A for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:50151 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QvWTR-0002nA-PZ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:31:38 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110822160153.0da01738@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:33:58 +0200 To: Patrik Fältström From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <8B4C3A22-D3B7-4635-9218-5900B6FCC3A5@frobbit.se> References: <4E3188F7.3000802@ostler.net> <0B3BA86C-DDFD-4C7C-A539-6EA75EB2F024@frobbit.se> <4E327BD2.4010908@ostler.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802145622.0e0d6f88@jefsey.com> <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> <8B4C3A22-D3B7-4635-9218-5900B6FCC3A5@frobbit.se> 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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: nicholas@ostler.net, arabic-vip@icann.org, devanagari-vip@icann.org, Andrew Sullivan , iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:30:38 -0000 At 10:40 22/08/2011, Patrik Fältström wrote: >On 2 aug 2011, at 18:37, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > By TLD I mean TLD and by prefix I mean whatever label(s) someone > may want to conventinally introduce prior to the domain name he/she uses. > >A domain name is whatever set of one or more labels you for example >can use in a DNS query that together with type and class form the >triple on which matching is based. >What you seem to talk about is one label in a domain name, but not a >domain name. Dear Patrick, Please remember that when we started the WG/IDNA2008 work, I asked Vint if the intent was to address the needs of the users or the needs of the Internet, as per the charter. The response from James Seng confirmed by Vint was: the needs of the Internet. I then said I will develop the ML-DNS to suit the needs of the users based upon the IDNA2008 outcome if this was possible. At a given time the debate shown it would not be possible and we opposed for that reason. I was therefore fired with some "Jefsey's disciples", etc. At the end of the day we surprisingly were able to reach a consensus because it turned out that the Internet technology was able, in an "unusual" way (RFC 5895): 1. to support IDNA2008 on the network side - as per the WG. Hence the consensus with our mental restriction concerning othotypographic metadata.(e.g. French majuscules) 2. to support IDNA2008 on the user side through what I call "IUI" (Internet/Intelligent Use Interface) with the users' machine and its applications. Work to be carried somewhere. I asked IESG/IAB where. They made clear was that the possible IUI definition, experimentation, etc. was of potential interest to the IETF but was no part of its scope. Hence the need to initiate a place to carry that work (IUTF, etc.) and a way to liaise with the IETF as an "IETF client". The IUCG which helped the IDNA2008 consensus on our side seems to be the proper place for that since it is a user's need. Now, I have a personal difficulty. 1. The IUI is an architectural component which has to be neutrally defined on a general architectural basis. 2. Then I have my own architectural project (I name Internet PLUS) to develop and support an IUI. There may be others. However, the IUI concept being a new one, my own experimental implementation will validate it. I am therefore to be careful at not confusing what is intrinsic to a subsidiary extension of the Internet architecture (I call the SDNS [subsidiary DNS] in the DNS case) and what belongs to my own SDNS implementation, I carry through ALFA. In *my* implementation, the necessary dialog between the user and its network piece of intelligence located at the participating IUIs (local, host, cybship - i.e. all the other processes controlled by the user whatever the machine) can simply be carried by a "netix" command set also delivered by what I name "prefixes". This being said. In my personal project, if we take the "xyz.icann.org" domain name, if I can differentiate "xyz", I can consider "icann.org" as the registered domain name of ICANN and "xyz" as a netix "prefix" which has been introduced prior to that domain name - however it looks as being a part of it so it goes through to the ML-DNS. The way this prefix is to be used is no part of the Internet and of the Internet DNS, but will be filtered and applied by the ML-DNS. For example, I can say that "9--2.icann.org" is to be understood by the ML-DNS as to stand for a class 2 "icann.org" FQDN, the ML-DNS will make the DNS resolve as such. This means that "9--2.xn--jean-franois-sdb.jefsey.com" will be "jean-françois.jefsey.com" in CLASS 2. However, please remember that this is only because the ML-DNS acts as a smart middleware IDNApplication (cf. the scheme in http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary). And with an ML-DNS, Internet PLUS experimental implementation. Why is this important to the IETF? For consistency reasons. Post IDNA2008 solutions should be consistent (RFC 1958) to be stable. For the time being we have at least seven entities considering them: - IAB - UNICODE - PRECIS at protocol level - ICANN at DNS governance level - emerging IUTF at IUI level - IUCG at user satisfaction level - and me at research and experimental level. I am sure there are others. Hence, my effort to get a common glossary and communication to help problems mutual understanding, jfc From patrik@frobbit.se Mon Aug 22 01:39:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBED921F88B6 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 01:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KG-DXBniaPbh for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 01:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D7A21F88A0 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 01:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF12A11C17BF9; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:40:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Wnx+OaRyHYF; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:40:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::12]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288FB11C17BEA; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:40:49 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E271827F-6B71-49B9-BABD-60D3F0B9D91C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:40:47 +0200 Message-Id: <8B4C3A22-D3B7-4635-9218-5900B6FCC3A5@frobbit.se> References: <4E3188F7.3000802@ostler.net> <0B3BA86C-DDFD-4C7C-A539-6EA75EB2F024@frobbit.se> <4E327BD2.4010908@ostler.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802145622.0e0d6f88@jefsey.com> <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> To: JFC Morfin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:42:34 -0700 Cc: nicholas@ostler.net, arabic-vip@icann.org, devanagari-vip@icann.org, Andrew Sullivan , iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:39:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E271827F-6B71-49B9-BABD-60D3F0B9D91C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2 aug 2011, at 18:37, JFC Morfin wrote: > By TLD I mean TLD and by prefix I mean whatever label(s) someone may = want to conventinally introduce prior to the domain name he/she uses. A domain name is whatever set of one or more labels you for example can = use in a DNS query that together with type and class form the triple on = which matching is based. What you seem to talk about is one label in a domain name, but not a = domain name. Patrik --Apple-Mail=_E271827F-6B71-49B9-BABD-60D3F0B9D91C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFOUhYQrMabGguI180RAnXGAJ0W7dJzd8ZX1BDlfohRLnX6XPQbogCfYF9W EU/L90Hnk+ZUgkqlt1jxx4Y= =BBPP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E271827F-6B71-49B9-BABD-60D3F0B9D91C-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 22 09:43:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423E021F8BD3; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBqkbIngD23R; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA7221F8BB8; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:50308 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QvXcO-0000uR-Jj; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:44:58 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821123810.0da014a8@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:47:15 +0200 To: Andrew Sullivan From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20110821032449.GA39963@shinkuro.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821003129.0da01218@jefsey.com> <20110821032449.GA39963@shinkuro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_487443719==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: IETF Discussion , precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" , iucg@ietf.org, John C Klensin , vip@icann.org Subject: [iucg] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:44:09 -0000 --=====================_487443719==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:24 21/08/2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >Dear colleagues, > >I did not read the rest of the message past what I quote below, becase >it did not seem to me that the structure of the message would answer >the question I pose. Therefore, I make a request: > >On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:08:29AM +0200, jefsey wrote: > > However, the Internet MUST be supported by a > > network/human oriented universal semiotic system. > >I would like a defence of that claim. Speaking entirely personally, I >don't believe it. Dear Andrew, I cannot object faith, but I can explain why I believe we think the same things. >We shape our technology, but our technology also shapes us. Correct. But the way we shape our technology is diverse. Up to now IETF accepted that the user's response to their options was the "market". The IUCG is the acknowledgment that the response and the possible counter-response may first come from lead users, i.e. the people who know in advance what they want and are able to implement it by themselves. The IUCG mission is to welcome those who are ready to cooperate with the IETF, i.e. considering themselves as IETF users. IDNA2008 has significantly extended that role. This results from the IUI as I just explained to Patrik. This is because the IUI is an IETF/Intelligent Users interface, where users are not only IETF users but also IETF technical partners. In this it is necessary for the IETF: - 1. to understand and accept what the IUsers want to implement. - 2. to support it. In the IDNA2008 case, Point 1 is in part lower key because Point 2 has already been carried out: this is IDNA2008. However, it is also important because: - the IDNA architectural concept does not scale : nothing guarantees that two applications on the same machine will resolve the same DN into the same IP. - the guidance of IETF people, like yourself, is called upon by groups of users (e.g. VIP) - Post-IDNA2008 internal protocol updates are advisable (PRECIS) and RFC 1958 calls for the same problems to receive the same sollutions. - it is most probable that the outside-IUI choices will sometime interact with the inside Internet deployment. This is where we shape our IUI technology that may shape our Internet technology. By essence the Internet technology is resillient to our shaping. By essence the IUI technology wants to support and adapt itself to the Users' ways. >There is nothing intrinsic about "green" meaning "go". It does not mean "go". It means its OK. If you steered at sea in the dark and poor weather you know that only three colours are really distinguishable: white/yellow, red and greed (blue can come from the moon and some cultures confuse it with green). - white means "I am here", - red means "furnace, heath, danger", - and green means "peace, cool, no risk" as in landscapes. >There is nothing about the universe that causes time zones (which is >different from saying "differences in the apparent time of dawn and >dusk"). Yet we all, techno-literate that we are, take these bits of >cultural dreck and make them true. Moreover, we adjust to them -- >somehow finding it more convenient to say, "Darkness falls earlier," >than to say, "The time on the clock is wrong." I will not dispute that! The same as you adjust to your wife, to others, to your own weight and size, your personal gifts and weaknesses, etc. Organization and technologies become part of us. This is the reason why we prefer they are smart enough and in tune with our own ways. Not easy with the Internet (e.g.: ASCII DN), but we want to ease that (e.g. IDNA2008 we discuss here) supporting people's languages. Why just in part, when we can consider the whole thing? >It is, in my personal opinion, completely foolish to imagine that >Internet names -- which are, by their nature at the time of >registration and lookup, even if not for the user, completely devoid >of cultural context -- can ever be made completely user-centric. I feel this comes fom your Internet DNS responsbility bias. Please remember that users are not interested in Internet DNS but in naming what they want, something they do all the day long. The difference between engineers and users is that: - you talk about "internet names", we talk of "domain names" that can me on resumes, TV, books, etc. - you talk of registration and look-up as if they came first. We observe that what comes first is the person asking for the name he/she wants. - you rightly consider that for the computer process the DN string is devoid of cultural context. This is the opposite for the human choice to have registered that particular string. - you seem to consider user-centric as user-exclusive. I only talk of "network/human oriented" semiotic system. Please also remember that semiotics includes three (actually four on my PoV) disciplines: - syntax - includining orthotypology - semantics - meaning - pragmatics - context influence - variances - multilinguistics - practical coexistance of languages - including computer languages: what we discuss in here. >Users will have to learn some things, and some of those things will >be "Internet names are a little different, & have strange restrictive rules." This is where we agree: actually they will necessarily have to learn the DNS orthotypographic ways we will have decided together. Every semiotic system is necessarily conventional (protocol) between interlocutors. The difficulty is to support the orthotypography people expect and/or are able to technically impose (e.g. Project.FRA and French majuscules) and that will most probably evoluate with time, new technologies and contexts. - http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt - IESG indicated that they did consider it before approving IDNA2008. - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00 - http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt >More importantly, while I am not one of those people in the >thrall of the conceptual scheme (cf. Davidson), I think it is >preposterous to suggest that we will come up with a universal semiotic >system given the limitations of the DNS and the way that denoting >works in different linguistic traditions. I only talk of "universal", i.e. "used, intended to be used, or understood by all", not of anything exhaustive (in such a case you would be correct). What is on the table is a "network/human" relative need. How network systems and human expectations can fit together. >I believe we can come up with some useful conventions that will work >most of the time, for most people. Sorry, as a user of the deliverables, I cannot accept the human "most of the time/most people". Mecanology calls for an algorithm that works or fails without hesitations (you were the one to call for an algorithm and you were right). 1. As far as the technology is concerned the matter is over. This is IDNA2008: IDNA2008 does not consider variants. 2. So,the remaining issues are: - how do we define, protect, register, etc. variants at a community level (algorithm)? - how do we support their operations: aliases inside the DNS or user domain name massaging at the outside ML-DNS? To clarify our job let have a look at the current definition of "algorithm" in http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary Algorithm A term used in a broad sense in the Unicode Standard, to mean the logical description of a process used to achieve a specified result. This does not require the actual procedure described in the algorithm to be followed; any implementation is conformant as long as the results are the same. (source: Unicode glossary, author: undisclosed, text listed to be reviewed and possibly changed). This means that we have to specify the result first. Before deciding if this is possible or not. So, if we want to succeed we have to specffy something we can achieve. As far as I am concerned I would be happy with an algorithm preventing TLD homographic confusion and supporting reasonable TLD variants. I think it is possible. >I believe that these will strain the rules of every writing system >on the planet, in much the way that "ns1" strains English writing rules. To clarify this, let look at the current definition of "orthotypography" in http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary orthotypography The term 'orthotypography' is seen from the viewpoint of readability. It means the correct use of typographic signs to convey the intended semantic or context. Also known as "Typographical syntax", orthotypography defines the meaning and rightful usage of typographic signs and cases. Orthotypographic rules may vary broadly from language to language, from country to country, etc. (source: IUCG, author: Jefsey Morfin, text listed to be reviewed and possibly changed). "ns1" is correct orthotypography in the network/human oriented universal semiotic system and the DNS resolution algorithm can apply to it. >I am incredulous at the suggestion that the Internet needs a >"network/human oriented universal semiotic system," both because I >don't believe it The only way I can oppose faith, is to show it wrong. i.e. to implement a prototype solution. Under way. >and because I believe that humans (and especially human language) >are much more resilient than that. Absolutely yes (and this is true for each of the 22.500 language units, and more for the billions of idiolects and avalects) This is why Unicode, which is designed to support typographic workshops may not be adapted to support the algorithm we look for. For the time being my algorithm includes: - support of scripting metadata through ML-DNS since this was (probably rightfully) denied by IDNA2008. - a graphcode solution to oppose phishing. - particular cases agreed upon on a community basis, as TLDs and root-names (equivalent to TLDs outside of the Internet DNS - the ML-DNS being a multitechnology oriented project). jfc --=====================_487443719==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 05:24 21/08/2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues,

I did not read the rest of the message past what I quote below, becase
it did not seem to me that the structure of the message would answer
the question I pose.  Therefore, I make a request:

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:08:29AM +0200, jefsey wrote:
> However, the Internet MUST be supported by a
> network/human oriented universal semiotic system.

I would like a defence of that claim.  Speaking entirely personally, I
don't believe it.

Dear Andrew,
I cannot object faith, but I can explain why I believe we think the same things.

We shape our technology, but our technology also shapes us.

Correct. But the way we shape our technology is diverse. Up to now IETF accepted that the user's response to their options was the "market". The IUCG is the acknowledgment that the response and the possible counter-response may first come from lead users, i.e. the people who know in advance what they want and are able to implement it by themselves. The IUCG mission is to welcome those who are ready to cooperate with the IETF, i.e. considering themselves as IETF users.

IDNA2008 has significantly extended that role. This results from the IUI as I just explained to Patrik. This is because the IUI is an IETF/Intelligent Users interface, where users are not only IETF users but also IETF technical partners.

In this it is necessary for the IETF:
- 1. to understand and accept what the IUsers want to implement.
- 2. to support it.

In the IDNA2008 case, Point 1 is in part lower key because Point 2 has already been carried out: this is IDNA2008. However, it is also important because:

- the IDNA architectural concept does not scale : nothing guarantees that two applications on the same machine will resolve the same DN into the same IP.
- the guidance of IETF people, like yourself, is called upon by groups of users (e.g. VIP)
- Post-IDNA2008 internal protocol updates are advisable (PRECIS) and RFC 1958 calls for the same problems to receive the same sollutions.
- it is most probable that the outside-IUI choices will sometime interact with the inside Internet deployment. This is where we shape our IUI technology that may shape our Internet technology. By essence the Internet technology is resillient to our shaping. By essence the IUI technology wants to support and adapt itself to the Users' ways.

There is nothing intrinsic about "green" meaning "go". 

It does not mean "go". It means its OK.

If you steered at sea in the dark and poor weather you know that only three colours are really distinguishable: white/yellow, red and greed (blue can come from the moon and some cultures confuse it with green).

- white means "I am here",
- red means "furnace, heath, danger",
- and green means "peace, cool, no risk" as in landscapes.

There is nothing about the universe that causes time zones (which is different from saying "differences in the apparent time of dawn and dusk").  Yet we all, techno-literate that we are, take these bits of cultural dreck and make them true.  Moreover, we adjust to them -- somehow finding it more convenient to say, "Darkness falls earlier," than to say, "The time on the clock is wrong."

I will not dispute that!
The same as you adjust to your wife, to others, to your own weight and size, your personal gifts and weaknesses, etc. Organization and technologies become part of us. This is the reason why we prefer they are smart enough and in tune with our own ways. Not easy with the Internet (e.g.: ASCII DN), but we want to ease that (e.g. IDNA2008 we discuss here) supporting people's languages. Why just in part, when we can consider the whole thing?

It is, in my personal opinion, completely foolish to imagine that Internet names -- which are, by their nature at the time of registration and lookup, even if not for the user, completely devoid
of cultural context -- can ever be made completely user-centric.

I feel this comes fom your Internet DNS responsbility bias.
Please remember that users are not interested in Internet DNS but in naming what they want, something they do all the day long. The difference between engineers and users is that:

- you talk about "internet names", we talk of "domain names" that can me on resumes, TV, books, etc.
- you talk of registration and look-up as if they came first. We observe that what comes first is the person asking for the name he/she wants.
- you rightly consider that for the computer process the DN string is devoid of cultural context. This is the opposite for the human choice to have registered that particular string.
- you seem to consider user-centric as user-exclusive. I only talk of "network/human oriented" semiotic system.

Please also remember that semiotics includes three (actually four on my PoV) disciplines:
- syntax - includining orthotypology
- semantics - meaning
- pragmatics - context influence - variances
- multilinguistics - practical coexistance of languages - including computer languages: what we discuss in here.

Users will have to learn some things, and some of those things will be "Internet names are a little different, & have strange restrictive rules." 

This is where we agree: actually they will necessarily have to learn the DNS orthotypographic ways we will have decided together. 

Every semiotic system is necessarily conventional (protocol) between interlocutors. The difficulty is to support the orthotypography people expect and/or are able to technically impose (e.g. Project.FRA and French majuscules) and that will most probably evoluate with time, new technologies and contexts.

- http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt - IESG indicated that they did consider it before approving IDNA2008.
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00
- http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt

More importantly, while I am not one of those people in the
thrall of the conceptual scheme (cf. Davidson), I think it is
preposterous to suggest that we will come up with a universal semiotic
system given the limitations of the DNS and the way that denoting
works in different linguistic traditions.
 
I only talk of "universal", i.e. "used, intended to be used, or understood by all", not of anything exhaustive (in such a case you would be correct). What is on the table is a "network/human" relative need. How network systems and human expectations can fit together.

I believe we can come up with some useful conventions that will work most of the time, for most people. 

Sorry, as a user of the deliverables, I cannot accept the human "most of the time/most people". Mecanology calls for an algorithm that works or fails without hesitations (you were the one to call for an algorithm and you were right).

1. As far as the technology is concerned the matter is over. This is IDNA2008: IDNA2008 does not consider variants.

2. So,the remaining issues are:

- how do we define, protect, register, etc. variants at a community level (algorithm)?
- how do we support their operations: aliases inside the DNS or user domain name massaging at the outside ML-DNS?

To clarify our job let have a look at the current definition of "algorithm" in http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary

Algorithm
A term used in a broad sense in the Unicode Standard, to mean the logical description of a process used to achieve a specified result. This does not require the actual procedure described in the algorithm to be followed; any implementation is conformant as long as the results are the same.
(source: Unicode glossary, author: undisclosed, text listed to be reviewed and possibly changed).

This means that we have to specify the result first. Before deciding if this is possible or not. So, if we want to succeed we have to specffy something we can achieve.
As far as I am concerned I would be happy with an algorithm preventing TLD homographic confusion and supporting reasonable TLD variants. I think it is possible.

I believe that these will strain the rules of every writing system on the planet, in much the way that "ns1" strains English writing rules.

To clarify this, let look at the current definition of "orthotypography" in http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary

orthotypography
The term ‘orthotypography’ is seen from the viewpoint of readability. It means the correct use of typographic signs to convey the intended semantic or context. Also known as "Typographical syntax", orthotypography defines the meaning and rightful usage of typographic signs and cases. Orthotypographic rules may vary broadly from language to language, from country to country, etc.
(source: IUCG, author: Jefsey Morfin, text listed to be reviewed and possibly changed).

"ns1" is correct orthotypography in the network/human oriented universal semiotic system and the DNS resolution algorithm can apply to it.

I am incredulous at the suggestion that the Internet needs a "network/human oriented universal semiotic system," both because I don't believe it

The only way I can oppose faith, is to show it wrong. i.e. to implement a prototype solution. Under way.

and because I believe that humans (and especially human language) are much more resilient than that.

Absolutely yes (and this is true for each of the 22.500 language units, and more for the billions of idiolects and avalects) This is why Unicode, which is designed to support typographic workshops may not be adapted to support the algorithm we look for.

For the time being my algorithm includes:
- support of scripting metadata through ML-DNS since this was (probably rightfully) denied by IDNA2008.
- a graphcode solution to oppose phishing.
- particular cases agreed upon on a community basis, as TLDs and root-names (equivalent to TLDs outside of the Internet DNS - the ML-DNS being a multitechnology oriented project).

jfc
--=====================_487443719==.ALT-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 22 09:52:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5973121F8BFB; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.716, BAYES_40=-0.185, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nd3pyO+G2vHj; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AEC21F8BC4; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:50314 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QvXkh-00040E-3U; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:53:31 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110822184901.0da01b10@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:55:52 +0200 To: Masataka Ohta ,ietf@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <4E5284F5.5090003@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110821003129.0da01218@jefsey.com> <20110821032449.GA39963@shinkuro.com> <4E5284F5.5090003@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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, Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [iucg] [precis] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:30 -0000 At 18:33 22/08/2011, Masataka Ohta wrote: >That is, plain DNS with ASCII is the most internationalized DNS. Absolutely true! However it is not at all multilingual. The key issue here is that IETF (and to some extent, Unicode) confuses "international" and "multilingual". International means the way international relations are actually carried: in French for Posts, in English for most, in Latin in some cases. Multilingual means that every language unit is given an equal architectural capacity, they may or not take advantage from. Universal means that we do not need language and use values. Like in Telephone numbers, menus, etc. This is why we need to use the same semantic. jfc From patrik@frobbit.se Mon Aug 22 11:05:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE32821F8B31 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f06qKZsLhA7c for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv01.frobbit.se (srv01.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAE821F8B2E for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8C311C26BEC; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:07:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at frobbit.se Received: from srv01.frobbit.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv01.frobbit.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cRn2Xsg-Iq9y; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:07:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14]) (Authenticated sender: paf01) by srv01.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128FE11C26BE8; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:07:00 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110822160153.0da01738@jefsey.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:06:59 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <142E8933-C23E-40FC-858C-97724DD09D29@frobbit.se> References: <4E3188F7.3000802@ostler.net> <0B3BA86C-DDFD-4C7C-A539-6EA75EB2F024@frobbit.se> <4E327BD2.4010908@ostler.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802145622.0e0d6f88@jefsey.com> <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> <8B4C3A22-D3B7-4635-9218-5900B6FCC3A5@frobbit.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20110822160153.0da01738@jefsey.com> To: JFC Morfin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: nicholas@ostler.net, arabic-vip@icann.org, devanagari-vip@icann.org, Andrew Sullivan , iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:05:57 -0000 On 22 aug 2011, at 17.33, JFC Morfin wrote: > This being said. In my personal project, if we take the = "xyz.icann.org" domain name, if I can differentiate "xyz", I can = consider "icann.org" as the registered domain name of ICANN and "xyz" as = a netix "prefix" which has been introduced prior to that domain name - = however it looks as being a part of it so it goes through to the ML-DNS. My only point, which I reiterate, is that xyz.icann.org is a domain = name, as is icann.org and org. Three different domain names. Please do not use the term "domain name" for anything else. Patrik From rick@unicode.org Mon Aug 22 12:22:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B6421F8C57 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1TQubsgw9n+y for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACA921F8B36 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.73]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PX8J1h0031afHeLA4XPXTR; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:23:31 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.103] ([67.169.81.102]) by omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PXQp1h00c2CTM2z8dXQqk6; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:24:50 +0000 Message-ID: <4E52ABF1.6060308@unicode.org> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:20:17 -0700 From: Rick McGowan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iucg-owner@ietf.org, abuse@ietf.org, iucg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [iucg] Fwd: Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:24:28 -0000 Notice of Copyright Infringement The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476. The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc . I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Rick McGowan Unicode, Inc. August 22, 2011 From jefsey@jefsey.com Mon Aug 22 17:38:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1268321F8B7F for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E4 hex): To: Patrik F\344ltstr\366m ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7919321F8B7E for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:51000 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qvf1f-0001qF-OG; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:39:32 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110823015707.0da01360@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:06:22 +0200 To: Patrik Fältström From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <142E8933-C23E-40FC-858C-97724DD09D29@frobbit.se> References: <4E3188F7.3000802@ostler.net> <0B3BA86C-DDFD-4C7C-A539-6EA75EB2F024@frobbit.se> <4E327BD2.4010908@ostler.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802145622.0e0d6f88@jefsey.com> <20110802135851.GO22542@shinkuro.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110802171942.0e0d70d0@jefsey.com> <8B4C3A22-D3B7-4635-9218-5900B6FCC3A5@frobbit.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20110822160153.0da01738@jefsey.com> <142E8933-C23E-40FC-858C-97724DD09D29@frobbit.se> 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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: nicholas@ostler.net, arabic-vip@icann.org, devanagari-vip@icann.org, Andrew Sullivan , iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [vip] The "Invisible Separator Characters" Issue X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 00:38:35 -0000 At 20:06 22/08/2011, Patrik Fältström wrote: >On 22 aug 2011, at 17.33, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > This being said. In my personal project, if we take the > "xyz.icann.org" domain name, if I can differentiate "xyz", I can > consider "icann.org" as the registered domain name of ICANN and > "xyz" as a netix "prefix" which has been introduced prior to that > domain name - however it looks as being a part of it so it goes > through to the ML-DNS. > >My only point, which I reiterate, is that xyz.icann.org is a domain >name, as is icann.org and org. Three different domain names. >Please do not use the term "domain name" for anything else. Dear Patrik, however happy I would be to deffer to your wishes, I am lost at understanding what they are? 1. xyz.icann.org is a domain name, as is icann.org and org. Three different domain names. 2. in these domain names "org" is their TLD or suffix or first level label. 3. xyz, icann, and org are respectively their upper level label. I claim the capacity to call them their prefixes. If you have a problem with that I can also call them their ULL, and their TLD their FLL. However, this sounds less multilinguistic and unecessarily sophisticated? Best. jfc From jmabdp@gmail.com Mon Aug 22 17:41:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E9721F8BA7 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JIRuiXXe2q4c for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503CA21F8888 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so3255550yxj.31 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YKwfKVT8KqCfJqbMhmGAYDlo0M80FNMmu1U5ax/fD4k=; b=lfIm4BGLWZedLO1UbsS7574ZeQIMse16wwuxqem8UstetYbEwxccf1MbG5PE7sieBN 8BYEdQezCcDIs3BeLgnhMfod6xE++9fQzd6gTxyCXV05M3rpKop691wOnyK2gc5l8NUX xPDVFwxNR00dk+tWsu/aMAna6ygOI9we4epv8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.170.70 with SMTP id o46mr18697745yhl.14.1314060167543; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.109.40 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> References: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:42:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3040ec2e7ffc5804ab2179e3 Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 00:41:42 -0000 --20cf3040ec2e7ffc5804ab2179e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Colleagues, I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP? It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff? We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy with? Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions? The data are clearly identified as their data? What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not help our work. Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere? Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not have the same semantic as Unicode? Portzampac 2011/8/22 Rick McGowan > Notice of Copyright Infringement > > The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_**Common_Glossary#UNICODE_**Glossary > > The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_**Common_Glossary#UNICODE_**Glossary > > You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further > information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my > mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box > 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476. > > The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content > illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc . > > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described > above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its > agent, or the law. > > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification > is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on > behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. > > Rick McGowan > Unicode, Inc. > August 22, 2011 > > --20cf3040ec2e7ffc5804ab2179e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Colleagues,

I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP?It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff?
We use w= iki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy with? Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our fre= edom of speach? Or to discuss their positions?
The data are clearly ide= ntified as their data?

What should I do? To replace their glossay wi= th Rick's mail? That would not help our work.
Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere?
Rephrase e= verything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not ha= ve the same semantic as Unicode?

Portzampac

2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
No= tice of Copyright Infringement

The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_<= /u>Glossary

The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_<= /u>Glossary

You can reach me at r= ick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or clarification. My phone n= umber is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice P= resident, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476.

The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content illeg= ally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>.

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described = above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its= agent, or the law.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification= is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on b= ehalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Rick McGowan
Unicode, Inc.
August 22, 2011


--20cf3040ec2e7ffc5804ab2179e3-- From stelancel@gmail.com Mon Aug 22 17:53:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F388D21F8B92 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:52:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UvwItIAk3TNl for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467E521F8B10 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so2116233ewy.31 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:54:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9MepEfX3doho8PeMbxPgulOamIcMBZGxiF9cvyskrtc=; b=ZQI9iLgfICCTL35PnIDU9cYxyjKffJJDbrHeA5KMmz3wDGdj1zFN/jljR70MoD6k0n gS2DM3tMUGDC0SEz9utYFKG9L5UD57dhKaXcrJajvr5MYeRX0HBkybaAsYXivoTJk5eR f8xJCYXbr3TidO7jrAbO+JnSlNpwfAfKaDDDg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.96.16 with SMTP id q16mr811199eef.10.1314060842841; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.96.207 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:54:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:54:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Lancel?= To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52be749c035bb04ab21a123 Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 00:53:00 -0000 --bcaec52be749c035bb04ab21a123 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just read that before retiring for the night :-) Was Jefsey copied? Rick probably jumped at the URL and did not read the initial note? Stephane 2011/8/23 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc > Dear Colleagues, > > I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP? > It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff? > We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy > with? > Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our > freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions? > The data are clearly identified as their data? > > What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not > help our work. > Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere? > Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community > does not have the same semantic as Unicode? > > Portzampac > > > 2011/8/22 Rick McGowan > >> Notice of Copyright Infringement >> >> The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on >> http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_**Common_Glossary#UNICODE_**Glossary >> >> The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include >> http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_**Common_Glossary#UNICODE_**Glossary >> >> You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further >> information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my >> mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box >> 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476. >> >> The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content >> illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc . >> >> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described >> above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its >> agent, or the law. >> >> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the >> notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized >> to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly >> infringed. >> >> Rick McGowan >> Unicode, Inc. >> August 22, 2011 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > > --bcaec52be749c035bb04ab21a123 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just read that before retiring for the night :-)

Was Jefsey copied? =
Rick probably jumped at the URL and did not read the initial note?
<= br>Stephane

2011/8/23 jean-michel bernier= de portzamparc <j= mabdp@gmail.com>
Dear Colleagues,

I have received tha= t odd mail from an Unicode VP?
It seems that people are not allowed to d= iscuss their stuff?
We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy w= ith?
Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our fre= edom of speach? Or to discuss their positions?
The data are clearly ide= ntified as their data?

What should I do? To replace their glossay wi= th Rick's mail? That would not help our work.
Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere?
Rephrase e= verything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not ha= ve the same semantic as Unicode?

Portzampac


2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Notice of Copyright Infringement

The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_<= /u>Glossary

The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_<= /u>Glossary

You can reach me at r= ick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or clarification. My phone n= umber is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice P= resident, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476.

The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content illeg= ally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>.

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described = above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its= agent, or the law.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification= is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on b= ehalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Rick McGowan
Unicode, Inc.
August 22, 2011



_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg


--bcaec52be749c035bb04ab21a123-- From rick@unicode.org Tue Aug 23 11:14:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD0221F8BE4 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:14:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.491, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWYLTpSapd3t for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED60221F8BE8 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta22.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.89]) by qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Pu9o1h0021vN32cADuFgqA; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:15:40 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.103] ([67.169.81.102]) by omta22.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PuFg1h02R2CTM2z8iuFkUl; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:15:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4E53ED7A.7070302@unicode.org> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:12:10 -0700 From: Rick McGowan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internet users contributing group References: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040206070001000007030209" Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Aug 2011 18:14:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040206070001000007030209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You received a notification that you are in violation of the Unicode Consortium copyright on certain material posted on your website. The page in question on the iucg.org site is: http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary (Section 2.21 Unicode Glossary) That page contains glossary information that is directly and illegally copied from the consortium's glossary, at this page: http://www.unicode.org/glossary/ The Unicode Consortium requires that you remove that material from your website. I.e., remove section 2.21 of http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary If you wish to refer to the Unicode Glossary, you should make a link to http://www.unicode.org/glossary/ You should not re-publish the material without permission. ------------------------------------ On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP? > It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff? > We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are > unhappy with? > Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove > our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions? > The data are clearly identified as their data? > > What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That > would not help our work. > Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere? > Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse > community does not have the same semantic as Unicode? > > Portzampac > > 2011/8/22 Rick McGowan > > > Notice of Copyright Infringement > > The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary > > The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary > > You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or > root@unicode.org for further information > or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 > and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, > Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA > 94039-1476. > > The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our > content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc > >. > > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials > described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the > copyright owner, its agent, or the law. > > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am > authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right > that is allegedly infringed. > > Rick McGowan > Unicode, Inc. > August 22, 2011 > > > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg --------------040206070001000007030209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You received a notification that you are in violation of the Unicode Consortium copyright on certain material posted on your website.

The page in question on the iucg.org site is:
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary
(Section 2.21 Unicode Glossary)

That page contains glossary information that is directly and illegally copied from the consortium's glossary, at this page:
http://www.unicode.org/glossary/

The Unicode Consortium requires that you remove that material from your website. I.e., remove section 2.21 of http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary

If you wish to refer to the Unicode Glossary, you should make a link to http://www.unicode.org/glossary/
You should not re-publish the material without permission.


------------------------------------

On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP?
It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff?
We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy with?
Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions?
The data are clearly identified as their data?

What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not help our work.
Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere?
Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not have the same semantic as Unicode?

Portzampac

2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Notice of Copyright Infringement

The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary

The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary

You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476.

The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>.

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Rick McGowan
Unicode, Inc.
August 22, 2011



_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

--------------040206070001000007030209-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Aug 23 17:22:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F326621F8C8F for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.549, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlZa6xrouHNR for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFAE21F8C76 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173.180-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.180.173]:54882 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qw1FV-0004Oa-4N for iucg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:23:17 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110824003938.06e32148@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:25:44 +0200 To: internet users contributing group From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <4E53ED7A.7070302@unicode.org> References: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> <4E53ED7A.7070302@unicode.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_601352404==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 24 Aug 2011 00:22:12 -0000 --=====================_601352404==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Jean-Michel, Rick, I have looked at the file and at the remark of Boudaou. There is no proof whatsoever that most of the text in the "Unicode page" is genuinely proprietary. The same lists, definitions, often more structured or differently documented, exist on the web. I therefore suggest you stop telling that this part is from Unicode or replace it by entries from people more comprehensive and friendly to Internet users. What I understand from Rick is that he wants to impeach the IUCG to work its own way, i.e. using iuww (IUser Working Wikis), being probably more used to mailing lists (however, no one quotes the copyrights on mailing list while we quote the author). What he does not realise is that Unicode's copyrights come with the WTO rules based obligations to allow their users to reproduce, discuss, use in their own way and enhance the documentation of their deliverables. Or may be he has not understood that our problem is that we are not happy with the Unicode documentation and IETF RFCs and IANA Glossary, and ICANN etc. in the split uncoordinated way these people propose it. We do not complain, nor demand Rick, etc. to do a better job, to comply with better information standards. We engage in doing it for them, and they are welcome to take advantage from our added value and inputs (we are those who pay and know what people want and pay for[*]). [*] we pay with the products we purchase and use, we have no reason to pay twice. Copyrights are due by those who copy and sell, not by those who buy, use and suffer from lack of information. Now, if Rick wants to deliver some comprehensive Multilingual Internet/Intersem glossary to a IANA semantic registry service that everyone can use, understand and accept, he is REALLY welcome as he will save several of us a lot of time and efforts. However, if Unicode wants to stay out of our IUser touch, we cannot do anything about it. Too bad, but this is their problem. Best jfc iucg@ietf.org facilitator PS. If Rick really wants to fight his users we will set-up a private iuww.net users space and call for a real simplification of the Unicode/Internet relations that hamper the development of the Multilingual Internet for years. After all, the Internet is supposed to be for everyone ... including its owners, its users, those who pay. We know the problem is the users .... :-) >On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP? >>It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff? >>We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are >>unhappy with? >>Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove >>our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions? >>The data are clearly identified as their data? >> >>What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That >>would not help our work. >>Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere? >>Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse >>community does not have the same semantic as Unicode? >> >>Portzampac >> >>2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org> >>Notice of Copyright Infringement >>The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on >>http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary >> >>The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include >>http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary >> >>You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or >>root@unicode.org for further information >>or clarification. My phone number is >>+1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is >>Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, >>Mountain View, CA 94039-1476. >>The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our >>content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc >><jmabdp@gmail.com>. >>I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials >>described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the >>copyright owner, its agent, or the law. >>I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the >>notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am >>authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that >>is allegedly infringed. >>Rick McGowan >>Unicode, Inc. >>August 22, 2011 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>iucg mailing list >>iucg@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > >_______________________________________________ >iucg mailing list >iucg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg --=====================_601352404==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Jean-Michel, Rick,

I have looked at the file and at the remark of Boudaou. There is no proof whatsoever that most of the text in the "Unicode page" is genuinely proprietary. The same lists, definitions, often more structured or differently documented, exist on the web. I therefore suggest you stop telling that this part is from Unicode or replace it by entries from people more comprehensive and friendly to Internet users.

What I understand from Rick is that he wants to impeach the IUCG to work its own way, i.e. using iuww (IUser Working Wikis), being probably more used to mailing lists (however, no one quotes the copyrights on mailing list while we quote the author). What he does not realise is that Unicode's copyrights come with the WTO rules based obligations to allow their users to reproduce, discuss, use in their own way and enhance the documentation of their deliverables.

Or may be he has not understood that our problem is that we are not happy with the Unicode documentation and IETF RFCs and IANA Glossary, and ICANN etc. in the split uncoordinated way these people propose it. We do not complain, nor demand Rick, etc. to do a better job, to comply with better information standards. We engage in doing it for them, and they are welcome to take advantage from our added value and inputs (we are those who pay and know what people want and pay for[*]). [*] we pay with the products we purchase and use, we have no reason to pay twice. Copyrights are due by those who copy and sell, not by those who buy, use and suffer from lack of information.

Now, if Rick wants to deliver some comprehensive Multilingual Internet/Intersem glossary to a IANA semantic registry service that everyone can use, understand and accept, he is REALLY welcome as he will save several of us a lot of time and efforts.

However, if Unicode wants to stay out of our IUser touch, we cannot do anything about it. Too bad, but this is their problem.

Best
jfc
iucg@ietf.org facilitator

PS. If Rick really wants to fight his users we will set-up a private iuww.net users space and call for a real simplification of the Unicode/Internet relations that hamper the development of the Multilingual Internet for years. After all, the Internet is supposed to be for everyone ...  including its owners, its users, those who pay.
We know the problem is the users .... :-)

On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP?
It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff?
We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy with?
Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions?
The data are clearly identified as their data?

What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not help our work.
Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere?
Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not have the same semantic as Unicode?

Portzampac

2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Notice of Copyright Infringement
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary
The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary
You can reach me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476.
The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Rick McGowan
Unicode, Inc.
August 22, 2011

 





_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
--=====================_601352404==.ALT-- From mfberny@gmail.com Wed Aug 24 01:14:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4865121F8AD3 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGxryvCAk-lN for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEBF21F876F for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so839034yxj.31 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=GZUv8ty4VxX1kOYDevwytI8YLgLpLNkqxiB2VrPRvdg=; b=f0RRPMSXH3xnsrysazkcDpHSZeVTVhNP5LLPYxaS8gYEjdpDgf0ZNSsaq9bTRpivys fH+n5BscvqyXDHjSHHl1dXohjUf1JxhiPu6HyyyxnnRCtz7r9t/1VEJioa6E+AGtIMl2 uqwZWs+9u4NTP66CFIbDUoUsqRBXQHbnJz8ik= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.154.199 with SMTP id h47mr28488859yhk.81.1314173754390; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.138.164 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:15:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110824003938.06e32148@jefsey.com> References: <4E52A91C.2070603@unicode.org> <4E53ED7A.7070302@unicode.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20110824003938.06e32148@jefsey.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:15:54 +0200 Message-ID: From: Marie-France Berny To: internet users contributing group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f6c8acdb70804ab3bebd3 Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of Copyright Infringement X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 24 Aug 2011 08:14:46 -0000 --20cf303f6c8acdb70804ab3bebd3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jefsey, let face it. We talk about a glossary. A glossary is supposed to tell the truth on all the words being used in an area. - eiher Unicode claims copyrights on the truth. This means they consider themselves as UniGod. - or Unicode claims copyrigths on the list of terms they compiled. This means that they do not tell the whole truth, so they are not UniGod but his (commercial) prophet. "In the begining was the Script and the Script was the way to sell to men and women ..." - or Unicode claims legitimate copyrights on the way they do not tell the truth. And we are to restore the thuth for our fellow IUsers. As forced IUsers of Unicode through RFCs we are entitled to check. And to know and comment to the benefit of the IUse community the way Unicode describes what they do. M-F Berny 2011/8/24 JFC Morfin > Jean-Michel, Rick, > > I have looked at the file and at the remark of Boudaou. There is no proof > whatsoever that most of the text in the "Unicode page" is genuinely > proprietary. The same lists, definitions, often more structured or > differently documented, exist on the web. I therefore suggest you stop > telling that this part is from Unicode or replace it by entries from people > more comprehensive and friendly to Internet users. > > What I understand from Rick is that he wants to impeach the IUCG to work > its own way, i.e. using iuww (IUser Working Wikis), being probably more used > to mailing lists (however, no one quotes the copyrights on mailing list > while we quote the author). What he does not realise is that Unicode's > copyrights come with the WTO rules based obligations to allow their users to > reproduce, discuss, use in their own way and enhance the documentation of > their deliverables. > > Or may be he has not understood that our problem is that we are not happy > with the Unicode documentation and IETF RFCs and IANA Glossary, and ICANN > etc. in the split uncoordinated way these people propose it. We do not > complain, nor demand Rick, etc. to do a better job, to comply with better > information standards. We engage in doing it for them, and they are welcome > to take advantage from our added value and inputs (we are those who pay and > know what people want and pay for[*]). [*] we pay with the products we > purchase and use, we have no reason to pay twice. Copyrights are due by > those who copy and sell, not by those who buy, use and suffer from lack of > information. > > Now, if Rick wants to deliver some comprehensive Multilingual > Internet/Intersem glossary to a IANA semantic registry service that everyone > can use, understand and accept, he is REALLY welcome as he will save several > of us a lot of time and efforts. > > However, if Unicode wants to stay out of our IUser touch, we cannot do > anything about it. Too bad, but this is their problem. > > Best > jfc > iucg@ietf.org facilitator > > PS. If Rick really wants to fight his users we will set-up a private > iuww.net users space and call for a real simplification of the > Unicode/Internet relations that hamper the development of the Multilingual > Internet for years. After all, the Internet is supposed to be for everyone > ... including its owners, its users, those who pay. > We know the problem is the users .... :-) > > > On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP? > It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff? > We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy > with? > Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our > freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions? > The data are clearly identified as their data? > > What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not > help our work. > Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere? > Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community > does not have the same semantic as Unicode? > > Portzampac > > 2011/8/22 Rick McGowan Notice of Copyright Infringement > The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary The URLs where > our copyrighted material is located include > http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary You can reach > me at rick@unicode.org or root@unicode.org for further information or > clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and my mailing address > is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain > View, CA 94039-1476. The email address of the website owner, who has > reprinted our content illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc < > jmabdp@gmail.com>. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted > materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the > copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, > that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the > copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Rick McGowan Unicode, Inc. August > 22, 2011 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing listiucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > > > _______________________________________________ > iucg mailing list > iucg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg > > --20cf303f6c8acdb70804ab3bebd3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jefsey,
let face it. We talk about a glossary. A glossary is supposed to= tell the truth on all the words being used in an area.

- eiher Uni= code claims copyrights on the truth. This means they consider themselves as= UniGod.
- or Unicode claims copyrigths on the list of terms they compiled. This mea= ns that they do not tell the whole truth, so they are not UniGod but his (c= ommercial) prophet. "In the begining was the Script and the Script was= the way to sell to men and women ..."
- or Unicode claims legitimate copyrights on the way they do not tell the t= ruth. And we are to restore the thuth for our fellow IUsers.

As forc= ed IUsers of Unicode through RFCs we are entitled to check. And to know and= comment to the benefit of the IUse community the way Unicode describes wha= t they do.
M-F Berny


2011/8/24 JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com&= gt;
Jean-Michel, Rick,

I have looked at the file and at the remark of Boudaou. There is no proof whatsoever that most of the text in the "Unicode page" is genuinely proprietary. The same lists, definitions, often more structured or differently documented, exist on the web. I therefore suggest you stop telling that this part is from Unicode or replace it by entries from people more comprehensive and friendly to Internet users.

What I understand from Rick is that he wants to impeach the IUCG to work its own way, i.e. using iuww (IUser Working Wikis), being probably more used to mailing lists (however, no one quotes the copyrights on mailing list while we quote the author). What he does not realise is that Unicode's copyrights come with the WTO rules based obligations to allow their users to reproduce, discuss, use in their own way and enhance the documentation of their deliverables.

Or may be he has not understood that our problem is that we are not happy with the Unicode documentation and IETF RFCs and IANA Glossary, and ICANN etc. in the split uncoordinated way these people propose it. We do not complain, nor demand Rick, etc. to do a better job, to comply with better information standards. We engage in doing it for them, and they are welcome to take advantage from our added value and inputs (we are those who pay and know what people want and pay for[*]). [*] we pay with the products we purchase and use, we have no reason to pay twice. Copyrights are due by those who copy and sell, not by those who buy, use and suffer from lack of information.

Now, if Rick wants to deliver some comprehensive Multilingual Internet/Intersem glossary to a IANA semantic registry service that everyone can use, understand and accept, he is REALLY welcome as he will save several of us a lot of time and efforts.

However, if Unicode wants to stay out of our IUser touch, we cannot do anything about it. Too bad, but this is their problem.

Best
jfc
iucg@ietf.org facili= tator

PS. If Rick really wants to fight his users we will set-up a private iuww.net users space and = call for a real simplification of the Unicode/Internet relations that hamper the development of the Multilingual Internet for years. After all, the Internet is supposed to be for everyone ...=A0 including its owners, its users, those who pay.
We know the problem is the users .... :-)
=

On 8/22/2011 5:42 PM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

I have received that odd mail from an Unicode VP?
It seems that people are not allowed to discuss their stuff?
We use wiki as we use mailing lists archives: it is what they are unhappy with?
Or is it just that they want us to stop using Unicode? Or to remove our freedom of speach? Or to discuss their positions?
The data are clearly identified as their data?

What should I do? To replace their glossay with Rick's mail? That would not help our work.
Make sure that they did not copy their definition elsewhere?
Rephrase everything in our final document, making sure the IUse community does not have the same semantic as Unicode?

Portzampac

2011/8/22 Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org<= /a>>=20
Notice of Copyright Infringement
The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on=20
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary
The URLs where our copyrighted material is located include=20
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary#UNICODE_Glossary=20
You can reach me at rick@unicode.org = or root@unicode.org = for further information or clarification. My phone number is +1-650-693-3921 and= my mailing address is Rick McGowan, Vice President, Unicode Inc., P.O. Box 391476, Mountain View, CA 94039-1476.
The email address of the website owner, who has reprinted our cont= ent illegally, is Jean-Michel Bernier de Portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com<= /a>>.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.=20
Rick McGowan=20
Unicode, Inc.=20
August 22, 2011





_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

_______________________________________________
iucg mailing list
iucg@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg


--20cf303f6c8acdb70804ab3bebd3-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Aug 24 18:11:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C8E21F8BB6 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:11:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.076 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.522, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3uEbCXNM6pr for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAA021F8B03 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 123.154-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.154.123]:57197 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwOUs-0000RS-4M for iucg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:12:43 -0700 Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:15:13 +0200 To: iucg@ietf.org From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_690720853==.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 - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: [iucg] IUser information X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 25 Aug 2011 01:11:32 -0000 --=====================_690720853==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear IUsers, some clarification in terms of IUser documentation: 1. Unicode seems to deny IUsers the right to study and discuss the Unicode terminology. This seems preposterous and in conflict with WTO basic documetation rules. 2. After the intervention of Unicode VP, I have published a description of IUWW (IUser Working Wiki). http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW 3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public If you have any comment you are welcome. RFC 6360 being short enough, I provide its text for direct perusal and possible debate: over the IUCG's scope. ------ Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley Request for Comments: 6360 Vigil Security Obsoletes: 1150 August 2011 Category: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721 Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series Abstract This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area, which no longer exists. The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record of this decision. This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes the status of RFC 1150 to Historic. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6360. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 1. Background The For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs was established by RFC 1150 [RFC1150] in 1990 for use by the IETF User Services Area, which has not met since IETF 53 held in March 2001. This RFC sub- series was designed to provide Internet users with a repository of information regarding the Internet that might be interesting to a wide range of people. The publication of RFC 1150 [RFC1150] introduced the FYI sub-series of RFCs. Since that time, a total of 38 FYI numbers have been assigned. Many other Informational RFCs have been published that are not part of the FYI sub-series. The list of documents in the FYI sub-series can be found on the RFC Editor web site [INDEX]. 2. Conclusion of the FYI Sub-Series The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to the FYI sub-series. The IESG intends to continue to produce Informational RFCs, but none of them will be assigned an FYI number. All published RFCs that are currently part of the FYI sub-series will retain their FYI numbers. The FYI numbers continue to provide reference points for these documents, and the FYI number can be used in citations to these documents. If a future RFC is published that obsoletes an existing member of the FYI sub-series, the new RFC will not be assigned an FYI number. 3. RFC 1150 Moved to Historic This document moves RFC 1150 [RFC1150] to Historic. The procedural information in RFC 1150 is no longer valid. If it becomes desirable to make additions to the FYI sub-series in the future, new procedures can be developed to replace this document. 4. Security Considerations No Internet security issues are anticipated by the actions described in this document. 5. References 5.1. Normative Reference [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to the FYI Notes", FYI 1, RFC 1150, March 1990. 5.2. Informative Reference [INDEX] "FYI Index", http://www.rfc-editor.org/fyi-index.html Author's Address Russell Housley Vigil Security, LLC 918 Spring Knoll Drive Herndon, VA 20170 USA EMail: housley@vigilsec.com ----- Best. jfc --=====================_690720853==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear IUsers,
some clarification in terms of IUser documentation:

1. Unicode seems to deny IUsers the right to study and discuss the Unicode terminology. This seems preposterous and in conflict with WTO basic documetation rules.
2. After the intervention of Unicode VP, I  have published a description  of IUWW (IUser Working  Wiki). http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW
3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public

If you have any comment you are welcome.
RFC 6360 being short enough, I provide its text for direct perusal and possible debate: over the IUCG's scope.

------

Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF)                       
R. Housley
Request for Comments:
6360                               
Vigil Security
Obsoletes:
1150                                             
August 2011
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                   
Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series

Abstract

   This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI)
sub-series of
   RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User
Services Area,
   which no longer exists.  The IESG does not intend to
make any further
   additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides
a record
   of this decision.  This document also obsoletes RFC
1150 and changes
   the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track
specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task
Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication
by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all
documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any
errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  

http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6360.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's
Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
  
(
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these
documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions
with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section
4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty
as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Background

   The For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs was
established by
   RFC 1150 [RFC1150] in 1990 for use by the IETF User Services
Area,
   which has not met since IETF 53 held in March 2001. 
This RFC sub-
   series was designed to provide Internet users with a
repository of
   information regarding the Internet that might be interesting
to a
   wide range of people.

   The publication of RFC 1150 [RFC1150] introduced the FYI
sub-series
   of RFCs.  Since that time, a total of 38 FYI numbers
have been
   assigned.  Many other Informational RFCs have been
published that are
   not part of the FYI sub-series.

   The list of documents in the FYI sub-series can be found on
the RFC
   Editor web site [INDEX].

2.  Conclusion of the FYI Sub-Series

   The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to
the FYI
   sub-series.  The IESG intends to continue to produce
Informational
   RFCs, but none of them will be assigned an FYI number.

   All published RFCs that are currently part of the FYI
sub-series will
   retain their FYI numbers.  The FYI numbers continue to
provide
   reference points for these documents, and the FYI number can
be used
   in citations to these documents.

   If a future RFC is published that obsoletes an existing
member of the
   FYI sub-series, the new RFC will not be assigned an FYI
number.

3.  RFC 1150 Moved to Historic

   This document moves RFC 1150 [RFC1150] to Historic. 
The procedural
   information in RFC 1150 is no longer valid.  If it
becomes desirable
   to make additions to the FYI sub-series in the future, new
procedures
   can be developed to replace this document.

4.  Security Considerations

   No Internet security issues are anticipated by the actions
described
   in this document.

5.  References

5.1. Normative Reference

   [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI:
Introduction to
            
the FYI Notes", FYI 1, RFC 1150, March 1990.

5.2.  Informative Reference

   [INDEX]   "FYI Index",

http://www.rfc-editor.org/fyi-index.html

Author's Address

   Russell Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   918 Spring Knoll Drive
   Herndon, VA 20170
   USA
   EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
-----

Best.
jfc



--=====================_690720853==.ALT--


From mfberny@gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 01:34:30 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77C421F89BA for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmboD0ZLdupX for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E075521F8A35 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywe9 with SMTP id 9so1822761ywe.31 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=gHKd4SE40j+k+zvOxSZ9sI+mG3YHz6y7PP8SGtqo9jk=; b=lBkcR/FJMdxbsy/XzZFhc+Feoit0NXrT3jj894jG6onjN9R3ILU9F6lWRmqCn7ycNj aucw9F0jtYtdXK9hzSjAY77Zc/OQTn3SYQwM91zxmY0GpwqKn3hZMbx1i4xNIXfzrFkm lVlO53unDQIQJUwYXVhldKAibAJaDOTYdITms=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.116.194 with SMTP id g42mr38585839yhh.0.1314261340687; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.138.164 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:35:40 +0200
Message-ID: 
From: Marie-France Berny 
To: internet users contributing group 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303e9e085a8ce704ab505001
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 25 Aug 2011 08:34:30 -0000

--20cf303e9e085a8ce704ab505001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Jefsey,
It seems that the task of informing users and for IUsers to document their
own environment through the IETF system (RFCs) is a too large task. Because
we are a too little number.  Because people are just not interested. Because
the principle of an RFC pile instead of some smart updated mindmap maybe
adequate to the IETF process, but is not to IUse.

>From what I read of FYIs, it was something not updated and centered on the
way experts wanted to explain and not on users' demands.

Our own iuwwws could be a response if we had different approach from RFCs,
some kind of RFC mindmap, with only the main ideas. But there is no such a
tool (even thebrain is not adequate since one cannot arrange links in a
logic order, only alphabetical order).

What would be necessary would be:

- to build a noomap management system, a map of what we really have in the
brain, that mindmaps may further on play with. May be based on Excel.
- to associate it to a registry system like the ISO one we discuss but have
no time to look into.
- to forget about copyrights because the issue is not what is copied, but
what is inside. Fed-up with people wanting us to pay everything or tell who
told us what including what is in our brain! (but not telling us who told
them !!!!)

This being said. May be if we could find a list of the FYIs it could be
interesting?
MFB



2011/8/25 jefsey 

>  Dear IUsers,
> some clarification in terms of IUser documentation:
>
> 1. Unicode seems to deny IUsers the right to study and discuss the Unicode
> terminology. This seems preposterous and in conflict with WTO basic
> documetation rules.
> 2. After the intervention of Unicode VP, I  have published a description
> of IUWW (IUser Working  Wiki). http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW
> 3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI sub-series of
> RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public
>
> If you have any comment you are welcome.
> RFC 6360 being short enough, I provide its text for direct perusal and
> possible debate: over the IUCG's scope.
>
> ------
>
> Internet Engineering Task Force
> (IETF)
> R. Housley
> Request for Comments:
> 6360
> Vigil Security
> Obsoletes:
> 1150
> August 2011
> Category: Informational
> ISSN: 2070-1721
>
>
>
> Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series
>
> Abstract
>
>    This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI)
> sub-series of
>    RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User
> Services Area,
>    which no longer exists.  The IESG does not intend to
> make any further
>    additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides
> a record
>    of this decision.  This document also obsoletes RFC
> 1150 and changes
>    the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.
>
> Status of This Memo
>
>    This document is not an Internet Standards Track
> specification; it is
>    published for informational purposes.
>
>    This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task
> Force
>    (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
> community.  It has
>    received public review and has been approved for publication
> by the
>    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all
> documents
>    approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
> Internet
>    Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
>
>    Information about the current status of this document, any
> errata,
>    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6360.
>
> Copyright Notice
>
>    Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
> the
>    document authors.  All rights reserved.
>
>    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's
> Legal
>    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
>
> (
> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document.  Please review these
> documents
>    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions
> with respect
>    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
> document must
>    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section
> 4.e of
>    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty
> as
>    described in the Simplified BSD License.
>
> 1.  Background
>
>    The For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs was
> established by
>    RFC 1150 [RFC1150] in 1990 for use by the IETF User Services
> Area,
>    which has not met since IETF 53 held in March 2001.
> This RFC sub-
>    series was designed to provide Internet users with a
> repository of
>    information regarding the Internet that might be interesting
> to a
>    wide range of people.
>
>    The publication of RFC 1150 [RFC1150] introduced the FYI
> sub-series
>    of RFCs.  Since that time, a total of 38 FYI numbers
> have been
>    assigned.  Many other Informational RFCs have been
> published that are
>    not part of the FYI sub-series.
>
>    The list of documents in the FYI sub-series can be found on
> the RFC
>    Editor web site [INDEX].
>
> 2.  Conclusion of the FYI Sub-Series
>
>    The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to
> the FYI
>    sub-series.  The IESG intends to continue to produce
> Informational
>    RFCs, but none of them will be assigned an FYI number.
>
>    All published RFCs that are currently part of the FYI
> sub-series will
>    retain their FYI numbers.  The FYI numbers continue to
> provide
>    reference points for these documents, and the FYI number can
> be used
>    in citations to these documents.
>
>    If a future RFC is published that obsoletes an existing
> member of the
>    FYI sub-series, the new RFC will not be assigned an FYI
> number.
>
> 3.  RFC 1150 Moved to Historic
>
>    This document moves RFC 1150 [RFC1150] to Historic.
> The procedural
>    information in RFC 1150 is no longer valid.  If it
> becomes desirable
>    to make additions to the FYI sub-series in the future, new
> procedures
>    can be developed to replace this document.
>
> 4.  Security Considerations
>
>    No Internet security issues are anticipated by the actions
> described
>    in this document.
>
> 5.  References
>
> 5.1. Normative Reference
>
>    [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI:
> Introduction to
>
> the FYI Notes", FYI 1, RFC 1150, March 1990.
>
> 5.2.  Informative Reference
>
>    [INDEX]   "FYI Index",
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/fyi-index.html
> Author's Address
>
>    Russell Housley
>    Vigil Security, LLC
>    918 Spring Knoll Drive
>    Herndon, VA 20170
>    USA
>    EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
> -----
>
> Best.
> jfc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iucg mailing list
> iucg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
>
>

--20cf303e9e085a8ce704ab505001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jefsey,
It seems that the task of informing users and for IUsers to docu=
ment their own environment through the IETF system (RFCs) is a too large ta=
sk. Because we are a too little number.=A0 Because people are just not inte=
rested. Because the principle of an RFC pile instead of some smart updated =
mindmap maybe adequate to the IETF process, but is not to IUse.


From what I read of FYIs, it was something not updated and centered on =
the way experts wanted to explain and not on users' demands.

Our=
 own iuwwws could be a response if we had different approach from RFCs, som=
e kind of RFC mindmap, with only the main ideas. But there is no such a too=
l (even thebrain is not adequate since one cannot arrange links in a logic =
order, only alphabetical order).


What would be necessary would be:

- to build a noomap management=
 system, a map of what we really have in the brain, that mindmaps may furth=
er on play with. May be based on Excel.
- to associate it to a registry =
system like the ISO one we discuss but have no time to look into.

- to forget about copyrights because the issue is not what is copied, but w=
hat is inside. Fed-up with people wanting us to pay everything or tell who =
told us what including what is in our brain! (but not telling us who told t=
hem !!!!)


This being said. May be if we could find a list of the FYIs it could be=
 interesting?
MFB



2011/8/25 je=
fsey <jefsey@jefs=
ey.com>





Dear IUsers,

some clarification in terms of IUser documentation:


1. Unicode seems to deny IUsers the right to study and discuss the
Unicode terminology. This seems preposterous and in conflict with WTO
basic documetation rules.

2. After the intervention of Unicode VP, I=A0 have published a
description=A0 of IUWW (IUser Working=A0 Wiki).

http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW

3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI sub-series
of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public


If you have any comment you are welcome.

RFC 6360 being short enough, I provide its text for direct perusal and
possible debate: over the IUCG's scope.


------



Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
R. Housley
Request for Comments:
6360=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Vigil Security
Obsoletes:
1150=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
August 2011
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series

Abstract

=A0=A0 This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI)
sub-series of
=A0=A0 RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User
Services Area,
=A0=A0 which no longer exists.=A0 The IESG does not intend to
make any further
=A0=A0 additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides
a record
=A0=A0 of this decision.=A0 This document also obsoletes RFC
1150 and changes
=A0=A0 the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.

Status of This Memo

=A0=A0 This document is not an Internet Standards Track
specification; it is
=A0=A0 published for informational purposes.

=A0=A0 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task
Force
=A0=A0 (IETF).=A0 It represents the consensus of the IETF
community.=A0 It has
=A0=A0 received public review and has been approved for publication
by the
=A0=A0 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).=A0 Not all
documents
=A0=A0 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet
=A0=A0 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

=A0=A0 Information about the current status of this document, any
errata,
=A0=A0 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
=A0=A0

http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6360.

Copyright Notice

=A0=A0 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
the
=A0=A0 document authors.=A0 All rights reserved.

=A0=A0 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's
Legal
=A0=A0 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
=A0=A0
(
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
=A0=A0 publication of this document.=A0 Please review these
documents
=A0=A0 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions
with respect
=A0=A0 to this document.=A0 Code Components extracted from this
document must
=A0=A0 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section
4.e of
=A0=A0 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty
as
=A0=A0 described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.=A0 Background

=A0=A0 The For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of RFCs was
established by
=A0=A0 RFC 1150 [RFC1150] in 1990 for use by the IETF User Services
Area,
=A0=A0 which has not met since IETF 53 held in March 2001.=A0
This RFC sub-
=A0=A0 series was designed to provide Internet users with a
repository of
=A0=A0 information regarding the Internet that might be interesting
to a
=A0=A0 wide range of people.

=A0=A0 The publication of RFC 1150 [RFC1150] introduced the FYI
sub-series
=A0=A0 of RFCs.=A0 Since that time, a total of 38 FYI numbers
have been
=A0=A0 assigned.=A0 Many other Informational RFCs have been
published that are
=A0=A0 not part of the FYI sub-series.

=A0=A0 The list of documents in the FYI sub-series can be found on
the RFC
=A0=A0 Editor web site [INDEX].

2.=A0 Conclusion of the FYI Sub-Series

=A0=A0 The IESG does not intend to make any further additions to
the FYI
=A0=A0 sub-series.=A0 The IESG intends to continue to produce
Informational
=A0=A0 RFCs, but none of them will be assigned an FYI number.

=A0=A0 All published RFCs that are currently part of the FYI
sub-series will
=A0=A0 retain their FYI numbers.=A0 The FYI numbers continue to
provide
=A0=A0 reference points for these documents, and the FYI number can
be used
=A0=A0 in citations to these documents.

=A0=A0 If a future RFC is published that obsoletes an existing
member of the
=A0=A0 FYI sub-series, the new RFC will not be assigned an FYI
number.

3.=A0 RFC 1150 Moved to Historic

=A0=A0 This document moves RFC 1150 [RFC1150] to Historic.=A0
The procedural
=A0=A0 information in RFC 1150 is no longer valid.=A0 If it
becomes desirable
=A0=A0 to make additions to the FYI sub-series in the future, new
procedures
=A0=A0 can be developed to replace this document.

4.=A0 Security Considerations

=A0=A0 No Internet security issues are anticipated by the actions
described
=A0=A0 in this document.

5.=A0 References

5.1. Normative Reference

=A0=A0 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI:
Introduction to
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
the FYI Notes", FYI 1, RFC 1150, March 1990.

5.2.=A0 Informative Reference

=A0=A0 [INDEX]=A0=A0 "FYI Index",

http://www.rfc-editor.org/fyi-index.html

Author's Address

=A0=A0 Russell Housley
=A0=A0 Vigil Security, LLC
=A0=A0 918 Spring Knoll Drive
=A0=A0 Herndon, VA 20170
=A0=A0 USA
=A0=A0 EMail: hou=
sley@vigilsec.com
-----

Best.
jfc




_______________________________________________

iucg mailing list

iucg@ietf.org

ht=
tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg







--20cf303e9e085a8ce704ab505001--

From jefsey@jefsey.com  Thu Aug 25 04:05:42 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2C521F8509 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.102
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.497, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ouskMY0BzHLz for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DE521F850B for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 214.212-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.212.214]:58255 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwXlu-0004J1-0Z; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:06:54 -0700
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825121355.06e32668@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:09:26 +0200
To: internet users contributing group , internet users contributing group 
From: JFC Morfin 
In-Reply-To: 
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.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: 
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 25 Aug 2011 11:05:42 -0000

At 10:35 25/08/2011, Marie-France Berny wrote:
>- to forget about copyrights because the issue is not what is 
>copied, but what is inside. Fed-up with people wanting us to pay 
>everything or tell who told us what including what is in our brain! 
>(but not telling us who told them !!!!)

This is an interesting idea to legally dig into. The copyrights on a 
mindmap content. I suppose this is a matter for the cafedu.com 
mailing list. I will think about it as a part of the extended theory 
of systems. What has become an intrinsic part of an intricated system 
should not be considered separately even if one can trace its origin. 
This means that the copyrights should be on the transport of an 
independent element. Once the element is melt into a larger system 
(in toto or in part) its true origin is lost beause its true semantic 
has evoluated? So the copyrights should be on the first leg of such a 
transport.

There should be some praetorian laws on this. What about looking at 
rules on tracability?

This definitly call for me to summarise somewhere the system extended 
theory, including the points on the entelechy, form, substance, 
essence, cortege, data, metadata, syllodata. but I am not sure this 
is yet stable enough. However, we need to have a try to an MDRS even 
a rustic one (that will probably give us new ideas). You also gave me 
an idea about maps. One can say that all of them are drafts from 
(personal or collective) ontographies. But the same as there are 
different kind of geographic maps, why not some different noetic 
maps. One of them could be a "semmap" understood as a neutral open 
semantic map (i.e. what we want to experiment with Projet.FRA)

Let try this:

1. we try to address the IUI virtual system first.
2. we try to add the SDNS support in it, with ML-DNS initial 
operations as a test.
3. we try to work on SQLite and port it to the virtual system
4. we try to get someone explaining us what the JTC1/SC32/WG2 really 
does and how we could build someting conformant for the MDRS.
5. as a test we get the iuww multilingual internet glossary in it. We 
will document this as a part of the intertest project.

The interest I would see in this is that SQLite, if I am correct, can 
be exported as a single file and supports MediaWiki. This would make 
a "semmap" format. Then we could articulate some analysis/integration 
cognitive and update tools. In such a case only members of a 
relational space could share better their ontographies (that is our target?).

At the same time we try to get a graphcode systemic to support a 
variant algorithm. If we use it instead of Unicode in the core of the 
MDRS and getting texts polylingualized ... plus the entire stuff 
being encrypted we would have a good support tool for a bold polynym basis?

Now, if I am correct from what you propose :

1. someone does an original work. He/she get author rights, basically 
to be called upon to work on his idea and in so doing being possibly paid.
2. someone becomes the owner of that work and wants to get paid for 
its paid copies.
3. the original work gets amalgamated with others' works in persons 
ontgraphies/ontologies by the original work of these persons. These 
persons do not much care about the current owner, but care about the 
inventor (to be able to discuss peculiarities with him, or 
successors, for example). So they should retain the source and the 
author as metadata.
4. the "ontomagma" can then be shared with third parties, i.e. 
transported but only the person's original work is on its first 
transport leg. So the copyrights are only with that last person.
5. the same rule applies for all the additioins to the ontomagma 
(extensions, translations) etc.

Does that sound correct?
jfc


From mfberny@gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 16:55:27 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD75421F8BCD for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.765
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DD0FTAzXf8ZZ for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9868D21F8BCB for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywe9 with SMTP id 9so2598195ywe.31 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=eLKsZPt22xPQt0D1ZdOJkA996IrBc+vOtsj5YmEF1Hc=; b=hrSx57ssS5/f2+fqIk3zdTv7nCdEgh+AYvx0KGcIwZVW9IN8orAdAd2JrNIT3/CCux z4BYk/3goBkBObl440IIw60YgihgqFUzKIEp/QrDt6laEsYL2SdbDd/6bkcLhcTKjMD2 zOjlfFDTSs1rVr2XzNw0kmhW2V/5kxSn71Bz8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.116.194 with SMTP id g42mr2682097yhh.0.1314316601106; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.138.164 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825121355.06e32668@jefsey.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>  <7.0.1.0.2.20110825121355.06e32668@jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:56:41 +0200
Message-ID: 
From: Marie-France Berny 
To: internet users contributing group 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303e9e08219fe404ab5d2e60
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 25 Aug 2011 23:55:27 -0000

--20cf303e9e08219fe404ab5d2e60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Jefsey,
I am OK with the ontomagma concept!. Let make your mail rest in digesting
peace for a few weeks and then let talk about a real plan.

The only addition I suggest, from Unicode's declaration of war to their
Internet users, is that we remove every reference to Unicode further on. Not
in retaliation, But because they demonstrated they really are not network
minded and user oriented.
MFB

2011/8/25 JFC Morfin 

> At 10:35 25/08/2011, Marie-France Berny wrote:
>
>> - to forget about copyrights because the issue is not what is copied, but
>> what is inside. Fed-up with people wanting us to pay everything or tell who
>> told us what including what is in our brain! (but not telling us who told
>> them !!!!)
>>
>
> This is an interesting idea to legally dig into. The copyrights on a
> mindmap content. I suppose this is a matter for the cafedu.com mailing
> list. I will think about it as a part of the extended theory of systems.
> What has become an intrinsic part of an intricated system should not be
> considered separately even if one can trace its origin. This means that the
> copyrights should be on the transport of an independent element. Once the
> element is melt into a larger system (in toto or in part) its true origin is
> lost beause its true semantic has evoluated? So the copyrights should be on
> the first leg of such a transport.
>
> There should be some praetorian laws on this. What about looking at rules
> on tracability?
>
> This definitly call for me to summarise somewhere the system extended
> theory, including the points on the entelechy, form, substance, essence,
> cortege, data, metadata, syllodata. but I am not sure this is yet stable
> enough. However, we need to have a try to an MDRS even a rustic one (that
> will probably give us new ideas). You also gave me an idea about maps. One
> can say that all of them are drafts from (personal or collective)
> ontographies. But the same as there are different kind of geographic maps,
> why not some different noetic maps. One of them could be a "semmap"
> understood as a neutral open semantic map (i.e. what we want to experiment
> with Projet.FRA)
>
> Let try this:
>
> 1. we try to address the IUI virtual system first.
> 2. we try to add the SDNS support in it, with ML-DNS initial operations as
> a test.
> 3. we try to work on SQLite and port it to the virtual system
> 4. we try to get someone explaining us what the JTC1/SC32/WG2 really does
> and how we could build someting conformant for the MDRS.
> 5. as a test we get the iuww multilingual internet glossary in it. We will
> document this as a part of the intertest project.
>
> The interest I would see in this is that SQLite, if I am correct, can be
> exported as a single file and supports MediaWiki. This would make a "semmap"
> format. Then we could articulate some analysis/integration cognitive and
> update tools. In such a case only members of a relational space could share
> better their ontographies (that is our target?).
>
> At the same time we try to get a graphcode systemic to support a variant
> algorithm. If we use it instead of Unicode in the core of the MDRS and
> getting texts polylingualized ... plus the entire stuff being encrypted we
> would have a good support tool for a bold polynym basis?
>
> Now, if I am correct from what you propose :
>
> 1. someone does an original work. He/she get author rights, basically to be
> called upon to work on his idea and in so doing being possibly paid.
> 2. someone becomes the owner of that work and wants to get paid for its
> paid copies.
> 3. the original work gets amalgamated with others' works in persons
> ontgraphies/ontologies by the original work of these persons. These persons
> do not much care about the current owner, but care about the inventor (to be
> able to discuss peculiarities with him, or successors, for example). So they
> should retain the source and the author as metadata.
> 4. the "ontomagma" can then be shared with third parties, i.e. transported
> but only the person's original work is on its first transport leg. So the
> copyrights are only with that last person.
> 5. the same rule applies for all the additioins to the ontomagma
> (extensions, translations) etc.
>
> Does that sound correct?
>
> jfc
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> iucg mailing list
> iucg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/iucg
>

--20cf303e9e08219fe404ab5d2e60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jefsey,
I am OK with the ontomagma concept!. Let make your mail rest in =
digesting peace for a few weeks and then let talk about a real plan.
The only addition I suggest, from Unicode's declaration of war to thei=
r Internet users, is that we remove every reference to Unicode further on. =
Not in retaliation, But because they demonstrated they really are not netwo=
rk minded and user oriented. 

MFB

2011/8/25 JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>=



At 10:35 25/08/2011, Marie-France Berny wrote:



- to forget about copyrights because the issue is not what is copied, but w=
hat is inside. Fed-up with people wanting us to pay everything or tell who =
told us what including what is in our brain! (but not telling us who told t=
hem !!!!)






This is an interesting idea to legally dig into. The copyrights on a mindma=
p content. I suppose this is a matter for the cafedu.com mailing list. I will think about it as a =
part of the extended theory of systems. What has become an intrinsic part o=
f an intricated system should not be considered separately even if one can =
trace its origin. This means that the copyrights should be on the transport=
 of an independent element. Once the element is melt into a larger system (=
in toto or in part) its true origin is lost beause its true semantic has ev=
oluated? So the copyrights should be on the first leg of such a transport.<=
br>



There should be some praetorian laws on this. What about looking at rules o=
n tracability?



This definitly call for me to summarise somewhere the system extended theor=
y, including the points on the entelechy, form, substance, essence, cortege=
, data, metadata, syllodata. but I am not sure this is yet stable enough. H=
owever, we need to have a try to an MDRS even a rustic one (that will proba=
bly give us new ideas). You also gave me an idea about maps. One can say th=
at all of them are drafts from (personal or collective) ontographies. But t=
he same as there are different kind of geographic maps, why not some differ=
ent noetic maps. One of them could be a "semmap" understood as a =
neutral open semantic map (i.e. what we want to experiment with Projet.FRA)=





Let try this:



1. we try to address the IUI virtual system first.

2. we try to add the SDNS support in it, with ML-DNS initial operations as =
a test.

3. we try to work on SQLite and port it to the virtual system

4. we try to get someone explaining us what the JTC1/SC32/WG2 really does a=
nd how we could build someting conformant for the MDRS.

5. as a test we get the iuww multilingual internet glossary in it. We will =
document this as a part of the intertest project.



The interest I would see in this is that SQLite, if I am correct, can be ex=
ported as a single file and supports MediaWiki. This would make a "sem=
map" format. Then we could articulate some analysis/integration cognit=
ive and update tools. In such a case only members of a relational space cou=
ld share better their ontographies (that is our target?).




At the same time we try to get a graphcode systemic to support a variant al=
gorithm. If we use it instead of Unicode in the core of the MDRS and gettin=
g texts polylingualized ... plus the entire stuff being encrypted we would =
have a good support tool for a bold polynym basis?




Now, if I am correct from what you propose :



1. someone does an original work. He/she get author rights, basically to be=
 called upon to work on his idea and in so doing being possibly paid.

2. someone becomes the owner of that work and wants to get paid for its pai=
d copies.

3. the original work gets amalgamated with others' works in persons ont=
graphies/ontologies by the original work of these persons. These persons do=
 not much care about the current owner, but care about the inventor (to be =
able to discuss peculiarities with him, or successors, for example). So the=
y should retain the source and the author as metadata.


4. the "ontomagma" can then be shared with third parties, i.e. tr=
ansported but only the person's original work is on its first transport=
 leg. So the copyrights are only with that last person.

5. the same rule applies for all the additioins to the ontomagma (extension=
s, translations) etc.



Does that sound correct?


jfc



_______________________________________________

iucg mailing list

iucg@ietf.org

ht=
tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg







--20cf303e9e08219fe404ab5d2e60--

From evnikita2@gmail.com  Thu Aug 25 20:51:28 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B1921F8785 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.457
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfBWgVKEq+wi for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7366A21F877B for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2455086fxe.31 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=Y3ypYxO+EKr39qhjtXn7rYNCQsbt+5XAQrYlG4kmuE0=; b=cCekWcvuIlyFiaYACUeDEBhqQpPyIMXzoH5BzXs9Ri3hxY7DqxBhE+i6rtmjZtc+CI vLWHskUXaAc6lC53nPFsL9/ZIVhQ8ToH9jZw3TgzJzs65Ol6v7Bu1db9ANjzTz75qypv pngInlPev8ruU4vqo/TzFf3fbEvJ3tl6PFD8M=
Received: by 10.223.59.73 with SMTP id k9mr826855fah.138.1314330762002; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b14sm985122fab.19.2011.08.25.20.52.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E5718A9.3040104@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:53:13 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iucg@ietf.org
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060201090901090407040209"
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 26 Aug 2011 03:51:28 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060201090901090407040209
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

25.08.2011 4:15, jefsey wrote:
> 3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI 
> sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public

1. This was a decision of the whole IESG; note the draft's name being 
draft-*iesg*-rfc1150bis.
2. Conclusion of FYI seb-series had a formal reason only - absence of 
user services area, which ceased to exist.  Considered that, and the 
issue that RFC 1150 was clear regarding review of proposed FYIs by user 
services area wg, I believe that such decision is fair.
3. If you didn't want IESG to do so, you should have spoken up during 
Last Call.
4. If you didn't like IESG decision, you should have appealed as 
discussed in RFC 2026.

>
> If you have any comment you are welcome.

Why provide comments on already published RFC?  See bullet 3 above.

M. Yevstifeyev

--------------060201090901090407040209
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


  
    
  
  
    25.08.2011 4:15, jefsey wrote:

    
 3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to
      the FYI sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to
      inform the public

    

    

    1. This was a decision of the whole IESG; note the draft's name
    being draft-iesg-rfc1150bis.

    2. Conclusion of FYI seb-series had a formal reason only - absence
    of user services area, which ceased to exist.  Considered that, and
    the issue that RFC 1150 was clear regarding review of proposed FYIs
    by user services area wg, I believe that such decision is fair.

    3. If you didn't want IESG to do so, you should have spoken up
    during Last Call.

    4. If you didn't like IESG decision, you should have appealed as
    discussed in RFC 2026.

    

    


      If you have any comment you are welcome.

    

    

    Why provide comments on already published RFC?  See bullet 3 above.

    

    M. Yevstifeyev

  


--------------060201090901090407040209--

From jmabdp@gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 00:21:19 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3FD21F8B1D for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6FpTJ+VZa1sx for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA26621F85BB for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so214991wwe.1 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VCCp66ox5ZHWzNbGlgviST4MnqgM4GecHgybS856A9g=; b=Z2cm7kx3p/Ca/VJtlYme5b0sD3ZgCUA1J7RhOzoZSAHRR3IPg2fSxr9lEx/xab7JhM 7nOZUrrN6QIhk4mVvPwz2P234qiCEcYJVcThQj1J/rSnoj1WuE3qGRYn6dNFaST2xPXG Rd52YgSk33AHAOeItK7W3iG0ojRgUjcCHFPMI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.24.145 with SMTP id v17mr609006wbb.1.1314343352653; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.196.16 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:22:32 +0200
Message-ID: 
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc 
To: internet users contributing group 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002215b02d1aa5d72204ab636811
Subject: [iucg] Notice of distrust
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 26 Aug 2011 07:21:19 -0000

--002215b02d1aa5d72204ab636811
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the "Unicode
Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 issues. The anti-fai=
r
use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal user and academic review o=
f
their language and an effort of consistency with the other Internet oriente=
d
SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a Unicode bias they seem to wis=
h
to protect should be feared. The Unicode deliverables should not be trusted
in an Internet use environment, at least until Unicode acknowledges its
users right to analyze and review their technology.

Portzamparc

----



IDNA2008 strove to make the Internet independent from the Unicode versions
and, therefore, to reduce the impact of Unicode on the IDNA architecture
and, therefore, on the Internet.



However,

* some considered Unicode as central to their understanding of the Variants
and of their algorithm.

* that the Internet architecture is to be independent from Unicode
variations does not mean that it could not capitalize on its accumulated
observations and experience.

* fructuous relations between the multilinguists' network systems area and
the linguists' language and scripts area called for the bridge of polynym
terms.



This is why the possible integration of some definitions of the Unicode
Glossary was perceived as important and we wanted to publicly work on the
reduction of the possible distance between the Unicode glossary, as for any
SDO's glossary, with the IUsers' understanding and own glossary. However, i=
t
turns out that Unicode wants to thwart people who are subject to its tables
and policy from trying to understand them.



When quoting a document in order to conduct research and comment on it fall=
s
under "fair use" and is accepted worldwide. However, this is not the case
with Unicode, which '''shut down our site[MHL1] <#_msocom_1> ''' in stating
to our hosting company:



:''"I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright
owner, its agent, or the law.



:''I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized
to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed."



What is particularly worrying is that:



* the quoted document is a '''glossary''' where people are supposed to not
set out to invent on their own but rather to tell the truth. This means tha=
t
either Unicode claims '''copyrights on the truth''' (hence their UniGod
nickname), or that their "truth" is not the common truth.

* as Internet Users, we are subject to the influence (RFC 3935) of several
RFCs that trust the Unicode documentation of which we are not allowed to
jointly explore, discuss, or learn and, therefore, use.

* we looked for some of the definitions. Google found them in other more
documented (and also copyrighted) texts. We are users, not lawyers.





We, therefore, had to decide if we would or would not consider the Unicode
contribution as a reliable source for an involved Internet users=92 glossar=
y.
We had started working on the Unicode Glossary, making this part of the
[[IUWW]] very different from the Unicode copyrighted page (in particular,
starting the translation of it into French). Then, we had to review the
"algorithm" definition that is central for us and an important item for the
ICANN/VIP variants discussion.



The Unicode definition is (there is no direct link to the sole definition,
so we will quote it): "A term used in a broad sense in the Unicode Standard=
,
to mean the logical description of a process used to achieve a specified
result. This does not require the actual procedure described in the
algorithm to be followed; any implementation is conformant as long as the
results are the same."



We noted that this departed from the usual definition of algorithms, as
pertains to what a Turing Machine can execute. Our own understanding is tha=
t
an algorithm is a logical suite of qualitative, quantitative, and
significative functions that a Turing machine can execute in the
quantitative mathematic area and other equivalent machines that are still t=
o
be defined could execute in the pragmatic and semantic areas. The debate
here has shown that the Unicode definition of what we consider the key
scientific and cultural point is too far from our own understanding. We the=
n
identified the fact that from this difference actually came our two main
problems with Unicode: '''homography''' and '''orthotypography'''.



We, therefore, realized that if the US Unicode consortium does not respect
our work, they are unfortunately also not interested in respecting our
needs.

--002215b02d1aa5d72204ab636811
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"=A0 section has replaced =
the "Unicode Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA20=
08 issues. The anti-fair use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal u=
ser and academic review of their language and an effort of consistency with=
 the other Internet oriented SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a =
Unicode bias they seem to wish to protect should be feared. The Unicode del=
iverables should not be trusted in an Internet use environment, at least un=
til Unicode acknowledges its users right to analyze and review their techno=
logy.


Portzamparc

----



=A0



IDNA2008 strove to make the Internet independent from th=
e Unicode versions
and, therefore, to reduce the impact of Unicode on the IDNA architecture an=
d,
therefore, on the Internet. 



=A0



However,



* some considered Unicode as central to their understand=
ing of the
Variants and of their algorithm. 



* that the Internet architecture is to be independent fr=
om Unicode
variations does not mean that it could not capitalize on its accumulated
observations and experience.



* fructuous relations between the multilinguists' ne=
twork systems
area and the linguists' language and scripts area called for the bridge=
 of
polynym terms.



=A0



This is why the possible integration of some definitions=
 of the
Unicode Glossary was perceived as important and we wanted to publicly work =
on
the reduction of the possible distance between the Unicode glossary, as for=
 any
SDO's glossary, with the IUsers' understanding and own glossary. Ho=
wever, it
turns out that Unicode wants to thwart people who are subject to its tables=
 and
policy from trying to understand them. 



=A0



When quoting a document in order to conduct research and=
 comment on it
falls under "fair use" and is accepted worldwide. However, this i=
s
not the case with Unicode, which '''shut down our site[MHL1]=A0''' in st=
ating to our
hosting company: 



=A0



:''"I have a good faith belief that use of =
the copyrighted
materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the
copyright owner, its agent, or the law. 



=A0



:''I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the i=
nformation in the
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized=
 to
act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed."



=A0



What is particularly worrying is that:



=A0



* the quoted document is a '''glossary'&=
#39;' where people are supposed to
not set out to invent on their own but rather to tell the truth. This means
that either Unicode claims '''copyrights on the truth''=
' (hence their UniGod
nickname), or that their "truth" is not the common truth.<=
/p>


* as Internet Users, we are subject to the influence (RF=
C 3935) of
several RFCs that trust the Unicode documentation of which we are not allow=
ed
to jointly explore, discuss, or learn and, therefore, use.



* we looked for some of the definitions. Google found th=
em in other
more documented (and also copyrighted) texts. We are users, not lawyers.



=A0



=A0



We, therefore, had to decide if we would or would not co=
nsider the
Unicode contribution as a reliable source for an involved Internet users=92=
 glossary.
We had started working on the Unicode Glossary, making this part of the
[[IUWW]] very different from the Unicode copyrighted page (in particular,
starting the translation of it into French). Then, we had to review the
"algorithm" definition that is central for us and an important it=
em
for the ICANN/VIP variants discussion. 



=A0



The Unicode definition is (there is no direct link to th=
e sole
definition, so we will quote it): "A term used in a broad sense in the
Unicode Standard, to mean the logical description of a process used to achi=
eve
a specified result. This does not require the actual procedure described in=
 the
algorithm to be followed; any implementation is conformant as long as the
results are the same."



=A0



We noted that this departed from the usual definition of=
 algorithms,
as pertains to what a Turing Machine can execute. Our own understanding is =
that
an algorithm is a logical suite of qualitative, quantitative, and significa=
tive
functions that a Turing machine can execute in the quantitative mathematic =
area
and other equivalent machines that are still to be defined could execute in=
 the
pragmatic and semantic areas. The debate here has shown that the Unicode
definition of what we consider the key scientific and cultural point is too=
 far
from our own understanding. We then identified the fact that from this
difference actually came our two main problems with Unicode: '''=
;homography'''
and '''orthotypography'''.



=A0



We, therefore, realized that if the US Unicode consortiu=
m does not
respect our work, they are unfortunately also not interested in respecting =
our
needs.





--002215b02d1aa5d72204ab636811--

From eblanconil@gmail.com  Fri Aug 26 00:41:11 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283A221F85AE for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EOQqivD4ORUt for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1749921F85AA for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so8942433pzk.18 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=sFP1f1whZZK/rkFLG+0Kvw7QjarQOwa8fXYjM+EsTL8=; b=AVEEK+d9lp/NxP/WovC2l/aDSxZLfycOATaz1PoBKEBnuAIag7MDvjcd9V/pizCrxV FUVbf0IecYLSTM97rVrSTnOsC7+j1r97vpV1aD7fG7dNMl4ZMXei0sseJ9tJUi87Qesa AcxeKHSMADGWauSUIFOZ2mZQ5vfDcgXLRcgFE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.149.17 with SMTP id w17mr410872wfd.339.1314344545669; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.142.3 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:42:25 +0200
Message-ID: 
From: Elisabeth Blanconil 
To: internet users contributing group 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd28d36c1d1b004ab63af36
Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of distrust
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 26 Aug 2011 07:41:11 -0000

--000e0cd28d36c1d1b004ab63af36
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1

2011/8/26 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc 

> The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the "Unicode
> Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 issues. The anti-fair
> use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal user and academic review of
> their language and an effort of consistency with the other Internet oriented
> SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a Unicode bias they seem to wish
> to protect should be feared. The Unicode deliverables should not be trusted
> in an Internet use environment, at least until Unicode acknowledges its
> users right to analyze and review their technology.
>
> Portzamparc
>

--000e0cd28d36c1d1b004ab63af36
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1

2011/8/26 jean-michel bernier de portz=
amparc <jmabdp@gma=
il.com>

The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"=A0 section has replaced =
the "Unicode Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA20=
08 issues. The anti-fair use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal u=
ser and academic review of their language and an effort of consistency with=
 the other Internet oriented SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a =
Unicode bias they seem to wish to protect should be feared. The Unicode del=
iverables should not be trusted in an Internet use environment, at least un=
til Unicode acknowledges its users right to analyze and review their techno=
logy.



Portzamparc





--000e0cd28d36c1d1b004ab63af36--

From jefsey@jefsey.com  Sat Aug 27 05:22:02 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8012D21F86BE for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.514
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gf9DyJATOub8 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395CA21F87F9 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 214.212-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.212.214]:64233 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHul-0003tI-03 for iucg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:23:07 -0700
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110826092906.06e32cd0@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:40:22 +0200
To: internet users contributing group 
From: JFC Morfin 
In-Reply-To: <4E5718A9.3040104@gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com> <4E5718A9.3040104@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_903754523==.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 - jefsey.com
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:22:02 -0000

--=====================_903754523==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Mykyta,
"Why provide comments on already published RFC?" Because RFC means 
request for comments.

I am afraid I was not clear enough. We have acquired experience. 
There was a user services area. Russ has accepted the IUCG list which 
is a new way to make users present and represented in the IETF. Our 
job is to find an adequate way to support the Internet (Engineering 
Task Force) User and their contribution. The way we explore has been 
opposed by Unicode, resulting in our distrust in the Unicode 
technical transparency and therefore adequacy for the Internet (until 
the growing influence of Google, the IETF trusted ISO 10646). As a 
result we have better defined the working method we think adequate.

Not only I do not oppose the IESG but I support its move. Up to us to 
imagine what to better do now if there is a better way than FYIs. 
Also, you certainly know that Unicode has made sure I cannot speak up 
on the IETF list.
Best
jfc


At 05:53 26/08/2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>25.08.2011 4:15, jefsey wrote:
>>3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI 
>>sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public
>
>1. This was a decision of the whole IESG; note the draft's name 
>being draft-iesg-rfc1150bis.
>2. Conclusion of FYI seb-series had a formal reason only - absence 
>of user services area, which ceased to exist.  Considered that, and 
>the issue that RFC 1150 was clear regarding review of proposed FYIs 
>by user services area wg, I believe that such decision is fair.
>3. If you didn't want IESG to do so, you should have spoken up 
>during Last Call.
>4. If you didn't like IESG decision, you should have appealed as 
>discussed in RFC 2026.
>
>>
>>If you have any comment you are welcome.
>
>Why provide comments on already published RFC?  See bullet 3 above.
>
>M. Yevstifeyev
>_______________________________________________
>iucg mailing list
>iucg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

--=====================_903754523==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"



Dear Mykyta,

"Why provide comments on already published RFC?" Because RFC
means request for comments.


I am afraid I was not clear enough. We have acquired experience. There
was a user services area. Russ has accepted the IUCG list which is a new
way to make users present and represented in the IETF. Our job is to find
an adequate way to support the Internet (Engineering Task Force) User and
their contribution. The way we explore has been opposed by Unicode,
resulting in our distrust in the Unicode technical transparency and
therefore adequacy for the Internet (until the growing influence of
Google, the IETF trusted ISO 10646). As a result we have better defined
the working method we think adequate.


Not only I do not oppose the IESG but I support its move. Up to us to
imagine what to better do now if there is a better way than FYIs. Also,
you certainly know that Unicode has made sure I cannot speak up on the
IETF list.

Best

jfc




At 05:53 26/08/2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:


25.08.2011 4:15, jefsey
wrote:


3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair)
puts an official end to the FYI sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF
user area to inform the public


1. This was a decision of the whole IESG; note the draft's name being
draft-iesg-rfc1150bis.

2. Conclusion of FYI seb-series had a formal reason only - absence of
user services area, which ceased to exist.  Considered that, and the
issue that RFC 1150 was clear regarding review of proposed FYIs by user
services area wg, I believe that such decision is fair.

3. If you didn't want IESG to do so, you should have spoken up during
Last Call.

4. If you didn't like IESG decision, you should have appealed as
discussed in RFC 2026.





If you have any comment you are welcome.


Why provide comments on already published RFC?  See bullet 3
above.


M. Yevstifeyev

_______________________________________________

iucg mailing list

iucg@ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg



--=====================_903754523==.ALT--


From jefsey@jefsey.com  Sat Aug 27 05:22:02 2011
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AA521F87E2 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.322
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.316, BAYES_50=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4rknbhjbfCq for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82A521F8829 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 214.212-227-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.227.212.214]:64233 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHun-0003tI-Rn for iucg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 05:23:10 -0700
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110826152540.10c982d0@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:22:10 +0200
To: internet users contributing group 
From: JFC Morfin 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_903754539==.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 - jefsey.com
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Subject: Re: [iucg] Notice of distrust
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:22:02 -0000

--=====================_903754539==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:22 26/08/2011, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:
>The following "Removed Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the 
>"Unicode Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 
>issues. The anti-fair use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a 
>normal user and academic review of their language and an effort of 
>consistency with the other Internet oriented SDOs. As a result the 
>possible existence of a Unicode bias they seem to wish to protect 
>should be feared. The Unicode deliverables should not be trusted in 
>an Internet use environment, at least until Unicode acknowledges its 
>users right to analyze and review their technology.

Jean-Michel,

I believe that this Unicode incident came in time. It was early 
enough to alert us on a problem we did not think of concerning the 
Internet of Thoughts: the Denial of Thinking. We known the DoT by 
saturation of irrelevant mails, influences, delaying tactis, etc. We 
met with Unicode the DoT by noetical fuel shortage. We were impeached 
to freely use our thinking method because its noetical processus 
calls for the participants to share a common referent, gathering, 
then sorting, then documentin all the data of the problem to address.

This is very important: this is the whole thinking facilitation 
architecture which must be reviewed. We feared desinformation as the 
noetical level security problem. The experimented possibility of a 
copyright based attack is now to be considered: the thinking process 
is removed its tools or its information fuel.

- you take the problem on a Trust basis. If we distrust someone we do 
not consider his/her inputs, and we are protected. This is true if a 
true peritem (closed/active border) can be built this way between us 
and him/her.

- now, consider - as for Unicode - that we only have an amphitem (an 
open/transparent border - our hosting provider has been hardened by 
the experience, but them or another piece of our cybship can be 
subject to attack, e.g. our virtual network, an OPES, etc.). This 
means that by many implications our common and personal facilitation 
processes can be subject to their interferences. This is not 
acceptable. This is a commercial censure (here a protection of their 
dominant situation), next it will be political or philosophical 
reduction of our right to a free cerebral assistance.

The IUWW (IUsers Working Wiki) is part of our working collective 
facilitation system. We experimented that Unicode (against the "fair 
use" consensus, i.e. against the law, but obviously with the alleged 
threat of the law on our hosting provider) was able to interupt that 
facilitation system. I think we have to consider that threat at the 
source, i.e. the culural source of such a behaviour what made Rick 
proud of himself while violating our freedom of thinking. I am 
reading ACTA for that.

Right now my question is: the current crisis comes from the 
incompetence of financial experts facing a world that has changed so 
much that politicians are also incompetent to correct them, both 
leaving the stage to merchants. And what has changed is that 
"information/immaterial" has become a major capital asset no one 
knows how to evaluate, so they use money. We face the same problem 
with domain names' value, i.e. with the unique authoritative root. 
This means that we face a general but probably consistant problem. 
This fits with the MDRS mission to provide everyone with its 
networked IANA. But now we have to protect it from money interests! 
ICANN for the internet, Unigod for the intersem.

Worrying.
jfc




--=====================_903754539==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"



At 09:22 26/08/2011, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:


The following "Removed
Unicode Glossary"  section has replaced the "Unicode
Glossary" working section of the IUWW on post IDNA2008 issues. The
anti-fair use attitude of Unicode shows they fear a normal user and
academic review of their language and an effort of consistency with the
other Internet oriented SDOs. As a result the possible existence of a
Unicode bias they seem to wish to protect should be feared. The Unicode
deliverables should not be trusted in an Internet use environment, at
least until Unicode acknowledges its users right to analyze and review
their technology.


Jean-Michel,


I believe that this Unicode incident came in time. It was early enough to
alert us on a problem we did not think of concerning the Internet of
Thoughts: the Denial of Thinking. We known the DoT by saturation of
irrelevant mails, influences, delaying tactis, etc. We met with Unicode
the DoT by noetical fuel shortage. We were impeached to freely use our
thinking method because its noetical processus calls for the participants
to share a common referent, gathering, then sorting, then documentin all
the data of the problem to address.


This is very important: this is the whole thinking facilitation
architecture which must be reviewed. We feared desinformation as the
noetical level security problem. The experimented possibility of a
copyright based attack is now to be considered: the thinking process is
removed its tools or its information fuel. 


- you take the problem on a Trust basis. If we distrust someone we do not
consider his/her inputs, and we are protected. This is true if a true
peritem (closed/active border) can be built this way between us and
him/her.


- now, consider - as for Unicode - that we only have an amphitem (an
open/transparent border - our hosting provider has been hardened by the
experience, but them or another piece of our cybship can be subject to
attack, e.g. our virtual network, an OPES, etc.). This means that by many
implications our common and personal facilitation processes can be
subject to their interferences. This is not acceptable. This is a
commercial censure (here a protection of their dominant situation), next
it will be political or philosophical reduction of our right to a free
cerebral assistance.


The IUWW (IUsers Working Wiki) is part of our working collective
facilitation system. We experimented that Unicode (against the "fair
use" consensus, i.e. against the law, but obviously with the alleged
threat of the law on our hosting provider) was able to interupt that
facilitation system. I think we have to consider that threat at the
source, i.e. the culural source of such a behaviour what made Rick proud
of himself while violating our freedom of thinking. I am reading ACTA for
that. 


Right now my question is: the current crisis comes from the incompetence
of financial experts facing a world that has changed so much that
politicians are also incompetent to correct them, both leaving the stage
to merchants. And what has changed is that
"information/immaterial" has become a major capital asset no
one knows how to evaluate, so they use money. We face the same problem
with domain names' value, i.e. with the unique authoritative root. This
means that we face a general but probably consistant problem. This fits
with the MDRS mission to provide everyone with its networked IANA. But
now we have to protect it from money interests! ICANN for the internet,
Unigod for the intersem.


Worrying.

jfc








--=====================_903754539==.ALT--