Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Mon, 15 November 2010 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122683A6D3D for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:34:58 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i+Wc7GpNAi9U for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3C73A693B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85A661ECB442 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:35:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:35:33 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20101115213532.GD322@shinkuro.com>
References: <31FCAB67-9E3E-4E2B-957F-1A1F628AA8FB@hopcount.ca> <4CDC6D23.6070309@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <61252B4A-571B-4879-B945-556C03DE2A96@frobbit.se> <4CDDD642.8080108@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FB73AEDC-2B5E-48F9-BCA5-2637CAF6B6A4@frobbit.se> <4CDE6D2D.40805@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4819246C-FF1F-456D-9732-51510F0537A1@frobbit.se> <4CE0F829.1010605@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7F03C666-16F8-49E4-BC56-F5DD441DD970@frobbit.se> <4CE1A110.1060403@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CE1A110.1060403@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:34:58 -0000

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:07:28AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> IT'S ENOUGH THAT YOU ADMIT "IT DEPENDS". Remember that you wrote
> "Because the matching function can not be changed." in your
> mail on November 13.

It seems to me that screaming on the list and taking two different
phrases out of context and mashing them together is a demonstration
that you are not interested in good faith conversations.  Moreover,

> And, under ISO 8859/1, it does not even depend,

ISO 8859-1 is completely irrelevant here, because how you get to the
point of having a U-label is totally out of scope for the IDNA2008
specification.  But whatever you do to get to that point, the U-label
has nothing whatever to do with ISO 8859-1.

> Then, we have agreed that localized domain names in IDNA2008 can
> not handle case insensitivities.

It is certainly true that the DNS-protocol case preservation but case
insensitivity matching rules are not internationalized exactly as one
might like in IDNA2008.  Without DNSng, I have no idea how to solve
that.  But you seem to be willfully ignoring that IDNA2008 actually
does address this, although in an uncomfortable and somewhat
unsatisfying way.  One could be forgiven for imagining that you
haven't bothered to read the RFCs you are insisting don't address the
issue you're talking about.

The draft does not need to address this point, because the point is
addressed elsewhere.  Every draft on internationlization is not an
opportunity to re-explore the rathole down which the IDNABIS working
group laboured for several years.  IDNA is shipping.  All the current
draft does is permit TLDs that are in conformance with IDNA2008,
except that it attempts to make the change as small as possible in
order to try to minimise the possibility of surprises from software
that had understood RFC 1123 as protocol and not policy.

I think the document should be shipped as soon as possible.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.