RE: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[Nicolas Popp <[e-mail]>]

James. 

I think you are missing Mr Ko’s point.

John asserts that keyword Systems are best viewed as layer 3 services.
At the same time, all the Keyword System implementers are saying that this
not a faithful reflection of reality. In fact, what does “real-world
deployment” experience tells us? It tells us the following:

1.	None of the deployed Keyword systems (AOL, Netpia, CNNIC, TWNIC,
3722, RealNames…) have been deployed as yellow page services (layer 3).
The breadth of their data and registered metadata (today) actually makes
them inferior directory solutions to the Yahoo or the Looksmart of the
world (or layer 4 services like search engines). As far as local
information, beside country and language, they don’t host any local
information like the one John describes for layer 3 services.

2.	On the other hand, ALL deployed Keyword Systems have been deployed
for direct navigation (AOL, Netpia, CNNIC, TWNIC, 3721, RealNames…). In
the context of direct navigation, a Keyword System unambiguously looks like
a white page service (with a strong uniqueness requirement (each tuple
{common name, country, language, service type} is unique). That, on the
other hand, does look like a layer 2 service to me from what I read in
John’s paper.

Now, you can argue that this is a choice of business model. However, it
would be missing the larger picture and the larger picture is: “how do you
solve the chicken and egg problem of deploying a large-scale, high quality
directory service on the network”? 

The answer from all the Keywords System has been the same: first you lay an
"egg". Laying an egg means you restrict the cope of the facets and build a
layer two system with a focus on one differentiated application that
destination directory services cannot compete with and that users want
(direct navigation in all scripts with simple names that have no syntax).
Once you have enough data, deployment and adoption, you build the "chicken"
(you had more metadata and build a layer 3 service). 

What I am saying is that layer 2 service must come first and then can grow
into differentiated directory services. Beside business models, that’s why
all Keyword Systems are layer 2 systems. They have been trying to bootstrap
layer two for 4 years now. They are indeed layer two services. They could
not be anything else.

-Nico

-----Original Message-----
From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:38 AM
To: YangWoo Ko
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3


Ko,

I think you got my point. IDN success or failure is really independent
of IRNSS. We do know that whatever the case, there are certain
limitation of IDN whereby IRNSS is designed to solve.

If there are Korean keyword providers (and there are many!) who have
technical requirements to bring forward, please help them to bring them
to this group. I undestand communication is going to be a problem but
that is where you can help. I am sure John and others here are happy to
hear them.

John's draft is unique in the sense that there is a "business model"
section in it but it is definately not a norm. But lets try to keep
business issues out of it unless of course John feels that he wants
feedback on his "business plan section". If that is the case, I have no
comments :-)

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "YangWoo Ko" <[e-mail]>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3


> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:59:23PM +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> > I believe the norm of the IETF has not take existing business
> > requirements into consideration. Their technical input, however,
would
> > be appreciated.
>
> Dear Jame Seng,
>
> Thank you for comment. I did not mention "direct navigaion" as a
business
> requirement. This is required for Klensin's search model to fulfill
its
> basic purpose - "Save our DNS ! Let it work and be used as it was
designed
> for !"
>
> There have been several approaches to fill up the difference between
DNS
> itself and what (non Latin script) people expect DNS to be. As there
was
> no standard to address this issue, commercial companies jumped into
this
> area to mine gold. These miners happened to (under)mine DNS as a side
> effect. So, we are hearing emergency call from DNS related areas. IDN
and
> Klensin's search is going to answer this call.
>
> If IDN WG succeeded in standardization and we suceeded in deploying
it,
> (personally I really hope so) it could relieve this burden and
Klensin's
> search would concentrate on other issues. But, when considering
Klensin's
> search, we would better not assume so many things. So, I still think
that
> some name service which supports "direct navigation" and hence serves
as
> an alternative to "internationalized network resource name" is needed
> to lessen unnecessary and even harmful overload on DNS and to prevent
> Internet be tangled along boarders of "so-called" keyword service
> providers.
>
> My best regards
>
> --
> /*------------------------------------------------
> YangWoo Ko : [e-mail]
> PeaceNet / Director
> ------------------------------------------------*/