[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Another thoughts on TRANSITIONAL

Subject: Re: Another thoughts on TRANSITIONAL
From: JFC Morfin
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:26:19 +0100
At 18:31 06/12/2009, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 07:51:18AM -0500, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> under IDNA2008 rules on a registry by registry basis (I mean registry
>> in its >> most general sense, not just TLD)
> The overwhelming majority of DNS operators -- i.e. "registries" -- in
> the world are blissfully unaware of ...

It is also the case that the very large set of operators use only LDH
in forming labels.

Either the assertion that the problem is scoped is true, or it is not.

I hope I understand you correctly. In that case IMHO the real problem you actually raise is to know if your dialectic (scoped or not) is still enough to describe the problem we really face due to the IDNA concept and what it reveals on the very nature/abilities of the Internet. I may be wrong but I read the situation as architecturally, strategically, politically chalenging. The current PVALID or not of two characters, are only an epiphenomenum.

If the problem has scope, that is, problematic values are not
sprinkled at random across under some 300 distinct graphs sharing the
property of being anchored in the IANA root -- .mil and the rest of
the odd balls included, and are also not sprinkled at random across
any other collection of distinct graphs having some other anchor, and
even those irritating pseudo-graphs injected by amusing ISPs that
appear to have anchors, yet do not (that's "stupid browser hacks" for
Yoav and Subramanian), then the absence of signs of intelligent life
in the larger universe of unaffected and uninterested and uninhabited
(by problematic values) zones managed by DNS operators is not relevant.

Is our problem pervasive, or is it local to some graphs? Do we care
equally, which is to say we don't care at all, about the graph that is
anchored in .gr, and random nodes everywhere else?

I think it is pervasively local to private relational spaces (i.e. the way users conceive their relation to the outer world). Since I do not know exactly what you call a graph I cannot comment.

I don't think our problem scope is well bounded by "at the
_top_ level we can co-ordinate something", or by "unbounded", that is,
is application, rather than delegation, defined.

If the existing problem is scoped (and I do ignore the certainty that
someone somewhere will create something intentionally in an arbitrary
node in an arbitrary graph with an arbitrary anchor), then for central
design choices to be revisited to allow an unscoped solution, is not a
small choice.

Correct. However, IMHO, IDNA2008 has shown that the first question is what is "central", does it exist anymore, and if it does not how to create and administer/govern a virtual core when it is convenient to have one. I must say that in my post IDNA configuration of my PC I do not use the IANA or any other root anymore. And that my priority obviously remains the support of French and Latin languages majuscules and to keep my privacy and semantic independent from any centralised DNS operator.


Ietf mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Another thoughts on TRANSITIONAL, JFC Morfin <=