From jmabdp@gmail.com  Tue Aug  2 06:35:39 2011
Return-Path: <jmabdp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CAKneH7+E-_59rawGUzWY5XvpGop-z6LX601XqWu22vfYbmUn3w@mail.gmail.com> <20110725215540.GA1878@shinkuro.com> <000601cc4b1e$57944a60$06bcdf20$@mobiry.com> <20110725233019.GK1878@shinkuro.com> <4E2E73E1.2080901@digsys.bg> <6B046E3B-CBE6-43A5-B4FA-7BFBD7A89240@eurid.eu> <E058CC91-F609-47A8-BF1D-0F3FB7BE169E@afilias.info> <7.0.1.0.2.20110727002912.055ab6d8@jefsey.com> <CAGzJzZ7EeXyfb_cPHe6DYfrxL7u4aXLPnnx1NJOv8jjdPs2uXA@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110727122404.06a73278@jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:35:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGzJzZ7vY17fZc75G=WSPLczU1dy8UdkFeK-DvqNC3AWM_eBTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:37:59 -0700
Cc: vip@icann.org, Giovanni Seppia <giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu>, precis@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [precis] [iucg] Internet User review: IDNA2008 follow-up at IETF/PRECIS and ICANN/VIP
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <jefsey@jefsey.com>

>
> 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,<br><br>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. <br>
<br>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. <br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>I started gathering the terms at=A0 <a href=3D"http://iucg.org/wiki/IDN=
S_Common_Glossary">http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary</a>. <br>I add=
ed the problem statement of PRECIS.<br>It could be great if you could revie=
w it. <br>
<br>Anyone can send me comments on the VIP, PRECIS and IUCG lists.<br>I hop=
e this help.<br><br>Portzamparc<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2011/7/29=
 JFC Morfin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefs=
ey@jefsey.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
Jean-Michel,<br>
<br>
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&#39; 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.<br>

<br>
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.<br>

<br>
T<br></blockquote></div><br><div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px=
; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin=
-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size=
: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>

--20cf3040ecac4a330804a985d384--

From jmabdp@gmail.com  Fri Aug  5 17:42:51 2011
Return-Path: <jmabdp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CAGzJzZ4_jtKdnMhu+CaxwJF+KKQifSKG5zJxEdCLQ9pN6z=s3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
To: IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, vip@icann.org, precis@ietf.org, iucg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:12:45 -0700
Subject: [precis] Update of the IDNS Glossary
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 (<a href=3D"http://=
iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary">http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossa=
ry</a>) has been updated to cover:<br><br>- the ML-DNS diagram<br>- inputs =
from RFC 6055<br>
- the different positions and problem statements<br><br>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.<br>
Best<br>Portzamparc<br><div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; pos=
ition: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top:=
 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10p=
x; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>

--20cf3040ecac7c357e04a9cb7fa4--

From jefsey@jefsey.com  Sun Aug  7 15:43:14 2011
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <jefsey@jefsey.com>) 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 <jefsey@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: 
Cc: vip@icann.org, bernarda@microsoft.com, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org
Subject: [precis] post IDNA2008 integration and terminology
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 jmabdp@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 11:33:50 2011
Return-Path: <jmabdp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc
Cc: vip@icann.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org
Subject: [precis] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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&#39; targets and they use =
the same terminology with the same meaning.<br>
<br>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 <a href=3D"http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary">http:=
//iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary</a>.<br>
<br>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. <br>
<br>Portzamparc<br><div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; positio=
n: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px=
; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; t=
ext-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>

--20cf305e21dfadf9fa04aadffbcc--

From jmabdp@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 16:29:37 2011
Return-Path: <jmabdp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com> <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 01:30:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>, vip@icann.org
Subject: Re: [precis] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <john-ietf@jck.com>

> 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,<br><br>&quot;we&quot; are Internet and IETF users. This m=
akes a pretty large community. There are three ways one can do it:<br><br>-=
 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.<br>- 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. <br>
<br>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&#3=
9;s and ISOC&#39;s copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefs=
ey will soon be alone!<br>
<br>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? <br>
<br><br>This being said you perfectly know that this<br><br><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote">2011/8/19 John C Klensin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:john-ietf@jck.com">john-ietf@jck.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex;">
without any specific<br>
attribution or acknowledgment. =A0Those materials include several<br>
RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. =A0</blockquote><div><br>is wrong. =
Your name, your RFCs etc. are quoted as such. We do not publish, we try to =
draft a pertinent mail to you!<br>=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I am an author or major<br>
contributor on several of those. =A0Especially since I had asked<br>
earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in<br>
other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, </blockquote><=
div><br>This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be carri=
ed. <br>Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real needs you =
did not consider yet.<br>
</div><br><div>Portzamparc<br><br>BTW I am not French, I am Breton!<br><br>=
<br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br><div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left:=
 -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px=
; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; f=
ont-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_p=
opup">
</div>

--20cf305e2505a28e5704aae41d70--

From jefsey@jefsey.com  Sat Aug 20 16:05:21 2011
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <jefsey@jefsey.com>) 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" <john-ietf@jck.com>
From: jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
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 <ietf@ietf.org>, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, iucg@ietf.org, vip@icann.org, Marie-France Berny <mfberny@gmail.com>
Subject: [precis] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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>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"

<html>
<body>
Dear <a name="OLE_LINK3"></a>John,<br><br>
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<br>
* the 2011 &quot;<b>inside Internet</b>&quot; that the IETF influences
and documents. IANA glossary, PRECIS propositions <br>
* and the 2011 &quot;<b>outside Internet encapsulation</b>&quot; that we,
its users, want to intelligently utilize . ICANN/WG/VIP, IUCG.<br><br>
Actually as the two sides of a smart interface that I call the <b>IUI</b>
as:<br>
* the Internet Use Interface on its Internet side.<br>
* 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
----<br><br>
1. <b>My appeals to the IESG and IAB permitted the IETF to answer the
first question</b>. 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. <br><br>
My evaluation is that the IUI is an &quot;IUser&quot;
(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.<br><br>
----<br><br>
2. The particular<b> IUI architecture</b> that I investigate is in line
with the architecture that I use, support, and have deployed for more
than thirty years. <br><br>
2.1. It is based on my <b>extended systems</b> understanding of:<br><br>
*&nbsp; 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). <br><br>
* 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.<br><br>
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 &quot;+&quot;
approach: e.g. Google+. <br><br>
2.3. The way IDNA2008 is designed calls for two necessary moves:
<br><br>
* <b>to use the DNS to deliver network oriented metadata</b>, 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.<br><br>
* <b>a total separation from the Unicode typography </b>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.<br><br>
-----<br><br>
3. The danger of what we found and in such architecture is that <b>it
actually is the Internet technology architecture</b>. 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 &quot;tunings&quot; to evade ICANN or to protect
ICANN; in addition to these &quot;adjustments&quot;, such as
PRECIS.<br><br>
-----<br><br>
4. My first idea was to use the notoriety of ICANN's plans and Google
Public DNS to <b>experiment</b><a name="OLE_LINK3"></a>  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 &quot;networking group&quot;, but others too.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The earthquake is the RFC 5895. It is from there that we need to proceed.
In two directions:<br><br>
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).<br><br>
4.2. to make sure that the &quot;patches&quot; being discussed in
parallel do not conflict and block that innovation.<br><br>
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 &quot;post IDNA2008 possible&quot;.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
----<br><br>
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
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary</a>. 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.
<br><br>
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.<br><br>
jfc</body>
</html>

--=====================_337516930==.ALT--


From john-ietf@jck.com  Fri Aug 19 13:37:30 2011
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com>
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: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:23:32 -0700
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>, vip@icann.org
Subject: Re: [precis] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <jmabdp@gmail.com> 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: <hsantos@santronics.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4559A21F857D for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; 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 SkvwdMYQ7u4J for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; 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 D4AFA21F855D for <precis@ietf.org>; 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=aTl9/obE4HZHlOwihfE9yBTYc692ATACeouVqhE RlPMsL5VMWyPluELvEFsmiZZ6I4A2fDMIlVBahO4Z6tf/kx9GGnMbZF5rIxTuPrk vPb90GLEa6syeyN8Bf5VLhz6OZv3Ut19L4JeCpCQK1KNEjQkXB3MmpnouhIbn+Pe qaUI=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.4.454.1) for precis@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 <hsantos@santronics.com>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
References: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com>	<86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:23:32 -0700
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, vip@icann.org
Subject: Re: [precis] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after	IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
> 
>> 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 mfberny@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 17:20:43 2011
Return-Path: <mfberny@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com> <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 02:21:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL-6tfUgmHp8TRqTTTB8M8GV0zhJQ60G2O+4ug8yMitqphcBkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marie-France Berny <mfberny@gmail.com>
To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:23:32 -0700
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, happiana@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, vip@icann.org
Subject: Re: [precis] [iucg] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary>*


 Marie-France

2011/8/20 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>

> 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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
>
>> 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,<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
I introduced what I hope will close this: WIKI RFC 3271 with an appropriate=
 comment. <br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://idna2010.org">http://idna2010.org</a><br>
The text John Klensin refers to is the working wiki page: <br>
<table>
<tbody><tr></tr><tr><td>
  <br>
</td><td valign=3D"top">
<p><b><a href=3D"http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary" title=3D"IDNS C=
ommon Glossary">IDNS Common Glossary</a></b></p></td></tr></tbody>
</table>
<table height=3D"10" width=3D"14">
<tbody><tr></tr><tr><td><br></td><td valign=3D"top"><br></td></tr></tbody>
</table>
Marie-France<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2011/8/20 jean-michel bernie=
r de portzamparc <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jmabdp@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank">jmabdp@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Mr. Klensin,<br><br>&quot;we&quot; are =
Internet and IETF users. This makes a pretty large community. There are thr=
ee ways one can do it:<br>

<br>- in surviving with what we (do not) get. Very large part of our commun=
ity.<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.<br>- 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. <br>


<br>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&#3=
9;s and ISOC&#39;s copyrights and cannot even be discussed and helped, Jefs=
ey will soon be alone!<br>


<br>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? <br>


<br><br>This being said you perfectly know that this<br><br><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote"><div>2011/8/19 John C Klensin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:john-ietf@jck.com" target=3D"_blank">john-ietf@jck.com</a>&gt;</span=
><br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
without any specific<br>
attribution or acknowledgment. =A0Those materials include several<br>
RFCs and draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis. =A0</blockquote></div><div><br>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!<br>=A0<br></div><div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">


I am an author or major<br>
contributor on several of those. =A0Especially since I had asked<br>
earlier that any compendium of this sort list terms covered in<br>
other documents, comment on them as you thought appropriate, </blockquote><=
/div><div><br>This is correct. But to respond to you, a lot of work must be=
 carried. <br>Beginning with an enlarged scope to other intricate real need=
s you did not consider yet.<br>


</div><br><div>Portzamparc<br><br>BTW I am not French, I am Breton!<br><br>=
<br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br><div style=3D"padding:0px;margin-left:0=
px;margin-top:0px;overflow:hidden;word-wrap:break-word;color:black;font-siz=
e:10px;text-align:left;line-height:130%">


</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
iucg mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:iucg@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">iucg@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><div style=3D"padding:0px;margin-left:0px;margin=
-top:0px;overflow:hidden;word-wrap:break-word;color:black;font-size:10px;te=
xt-align:left;line-height:130%">
</div>
<div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-inde=
x: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden;=
 word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; li=
ne-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>

--20cf303f6c8a65b54804aae4d4a7--

From jfc@morfin.org  Sat Aug 20 04:29:29 2011
Return-Path: <jfc@morfin.org>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <jfc@morfin.org>) 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 <hsantos@santronics.com>, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <jmabdp@gmail.com>
From: "J-F C. Morfin" <jfc@morfin.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E4EFB82.8050400@santronics.com>
References: <CAGzJzZ6yv2jbuP0-Jk586B4RDWr7UhFbp+wqnKoRqk1mBavh5w@mail.gmail.com> <86E32E259DD17E1166516052@localhost> <CAGzJzZ6DG5MfdgHEuggZpwKv_8dt3V1BQnFkNAFFKLxysS2VUw@mail.gmail.com> <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: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:23:32 -0700
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, vip@icann.org
Subject: Re: [precis] IDNA and Multilingual Internet issues and vocabulary after	IDNA2008
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 ajs@anvilwalrusden.com  Sat Aug 20 20:24:06 2011
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
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)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, iucg@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, vip@icann.org, Marie-France Berny <mfberny@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [precis] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=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 09:43:57 2011
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@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 <jefsey@jefsey.com>) 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 <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
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 <ietf@ietf.org>, precis@ietf.org, happiana@ietf.org, "idna-update@alvestrand.no work" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, iucg@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, vip@icann.org, Marie-France Berny <mfberny@gmail.com>
Subject: [precis] Path towards a multilingalization IUse referent
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:43:57 -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"

<html>
<body>
At 05:24 21/08/2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear colleagues,<br><br>
I did not read the rest of the message past what I quote below,
becase<br>
it did not seem to me that the structure of the message would answer<br>
the question I pose.&nbsp; Therefore, I make a request:<br><br>
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:08:29AM +0200, jefsey wrote:<br>
&gt; However, the Internet MUST be supported by a<br>
&gt; network/human oriented universal semiotic system.<br><br>
I would like a defence of that claim.&nbsp; Speaking entirely personally,
I<br>
don't believe it.</blockquote><br>
Dear Andrew,<br>
I cannot object faith, but I can explain why I believe we think the same
things.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">We shape our technology, but our
technology also shapes us. </blockquote><br>
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
&quot;market&quot;. 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
In this it is necessary for the IETF:<br>
- 1. to understand and accept what the IUsers want to implement.<br>
- 2. to support it.<br><br>
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:<br><br>
- 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.<br>
- the guidance of IETF people, like yourself, is called upon by groups of
users (e.g. VIP)<br>
- Post-IDNA2008 internal protocol updates are advisable (PRECIS) and RFC
1958 calls for the same problems to receive the same sollutions.<br>
- 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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There is nothing intrinsic about
&quot;green&quot; meaning &quot;go&quot;.&nbsp; </blockquote><br>
It does not mean &quot;go&quot;. It means its OK. <br><br>
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).
<br><br>
- white means &quot;I am here&quot;, <br>
- red means &quot;furnace, heath, danger&quot;, <br>
- and green means &quot;peace, cool, no risk&quot; as in
landscapes.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There is nothing about the
universe that causes time zones (which is different from saying
&quot;differences in the apparent time of dawn and dusk&quot;).&nbsp; Yet
we all, techno-literate that we are, take these bits of cultural dreck
and make them true.&nbsp; Moreover, we adjust to them -- somehow finding
it more convenient to say, &quot;Darkness falls earlier,&quot; than to
say, &quot;The time on the clock is wrong.&quot;</blockquote><br>
I will not dispute that! <br>
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?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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<br>
of cultural context -- can ever be made completely
user-centric.</blockquote><br>
I feel this comes fom your Internet DNS responsbility bias. <br>
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:<br><br>
- you talk about &quot;internet names&quot;, we talk of &quot;domain
names&quot; that can me on resumes, TV, books, etc. <br>
- 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.<br>
- 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.<br>
- you seem to consider user-centric as user-exclusive. I only talk of
&quot;network/human oriented&quot; semiotic system. <br><br>
Please also remember that semiotics includes three (actually four on my
PoV) disciplines:<br>
- syntax - includining orthotypology<br>
- semantics - meaning <br>
- pragmatics - context influence - variances<br>
- multilinguistics - practical coexistance of languages - including
computer languages: what we discuss in here.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Users will have to learn some
things, and some of those things will be &quot;Internet names are a
little different, &amp; have strange restrictive rules.&quot;&nbsp;
</blockquote><br>
This is where we agree: actually they will necessarily have to learn the
DNS orthotypographic ways we will have decided together.&nbsp; <br><br>
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.<br><br>
-
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt" eudora="autourl">
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt</a> - IESG
indicated that they did consider it before approving IDNA2008.<br>
-
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00" eudora="autourl">
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-idna2008-orthotypography-00<br>
</a>-
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt" eudora="autourl">
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-punyplus-03.txt<br><br>
</a><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">More importantly, while I am
not one of those people in the<br>
thrall of the conceptual scheme (cf. Davidson), I think it is<br>
preposterous to suggest that we will come up with a universal
semiotic<br>
system given the limitations of the DNS and the way that denoting<br>
works in different linguistic traditions.</blockquote>&nbsp;<br>
I only talk of &quot;universal&quot;, i.e. &quot;used, intended to be
used, or understood by all&quot;, not of anything exhaustive (in such a
case you would be correct). What is on the table is a
&quot;network/human&quot; relative need. How network systems and human
expectations can fit together.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I believe we can come up with
some useful conventions that will work most of the time, for most
people.&nbsp; </blockquote><br>
Sorry, as a user of the deliverables, I cannot accept the human
&quot;most of the time/most people&quot;. Mecanology calls for an
algorithm that works or fails without hesitations (you were the one to
call for an algorithm and you were right).<br><br>
1. As far as the technology is concerned the matter is over. This is
IDNA2008: IDNA2008 does not consider variants.<br><br>
2. So,the remaining issues are:<br><br>
- how do we define, protect, register, etc. variants at a community level
(algorithm)?<br>
- how do we support their operations: aliases inside the DNS or user
domain name massaging at the outside ML-DNS?<br><br>
To clarify our job let have a look at the current definition of
&quot;algorithm&quot; in
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary<br><br>
</a><b>Algorithm</b> <br>
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.<br>
<font size=2><i>(source: Unicode glossary, author: undisclosed, text
listed to be reviewed and possibly changed).</i></font> <br><br>
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.<br>
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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I believe that these will strain
the rules of every writing system on the planet, in much the way that
&quot;ns1&quot; strains English writing rules.</blockquote><br>
To clarify this, let look at the current definition of
&quot;orthotypography&quot; in
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Multilingualization_Glossary<br><br>
</a><b>orthotypography</b> <br>
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 &quot;Typographical syntax&quot;,
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. <br>
<font size=2><i>(source: IUCG, author: Jefsey Morfin, text listed to be
reviewed and possibly changed).</i></font> <br><br>
&quot;ns1&quot; is correct orthotypography in the network/human oriented
universal semiotic system and the DNS resolution algorithm can apply to
it.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I am incredulous at the
suggestion that the Internet needs a &quot;network/human oriented
universal semiotic system,&quot; both because I don't believe it
</blockquote><br>
The only way I can oppose faith, is to show it wrong. i.e. to implement a
prototype solution. Under way.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">and because I believe that
humans (and especially human language) are much more resilient than
that.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
For the time being my algorithm includes:<br>
- support of scripting metadata through ML-DNS since this was (probably
rightfully) denied by IDNA2008.<br>
- a graphcode solution to oppose phishing.<br>
- 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).<br><br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>

--=====================_487443719==.ALT--


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Aug 22 14:12:46 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F9C21F8B72; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.554
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, 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 PggXJ-lQXYSo; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A636A21F8B4F; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.59
Message-ID: <20110822211245.28524.77353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700
Cc: precis@ietf.org
Subject: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-framework-00.txt
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:46 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Preparation and Comparison of Interna=
tionalized Strings Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : PRECIS Framework: Handling Internationalized Strings in =
Protocols
	Author(s)       : Marc Blanchet
                          Peter Saint-Andre
	Filename        : draft-ietf-precis-framework-00.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2011-08-22

   Application protocols that make use of Unicode code points in
   protocol strings need to prepare such strings in order to perform
   comparison operations (e.g., for purposes of authentication or
   authorization).  In general, this problem has been labeled the
   &quot;preparation and comparison of internationalized strings&quot; or
   &quot;PRECIS&quot;.  This document defines a framework that enables appl=
ication
   protocols to prepare various classes of strings in a way that depends
   on the properties of Unicode code points.  Because this framework
   does not depend on large tables of Unicode code points as in
   stringprep (RFC 3454), it is more agile with regard to changes in the
   underlying Unicode database and thus provides improved flexibility to
   application protocols.  A specification that uses this framework
   either can directly use the base string classes defined in this
   document or can subclass the base string classes as needed.  This
   framework uses an approach similar to that of the revised
   internationalized domain names in applications (IDNA) technology (RFC
   5890, RFC 5891, RFC 5892, RFC 5893, RFC 5894) and thus adheres to the
   high-level design goals described in RFC 4690, albeit for application
   technologies other than the Domain Name System (DNS).  This document
   obsoletes RFC 3454.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-precis-framework-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-precis-framework-00.txt