[At-Large] IUTF FAQ preparation
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jan 12 01:47:54 UTC 2012
I will try to collect the questions raised and answer to produce and
maintain an IUTF FAQ.
At 17:47 11/01/2012, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>You only need to register the CLASS according to RFC6195 Section 3.2.
Correct. However, this calls for an agreement between the different
parties involved as the IDNS belongs to everyone. Compatibility is of
the essence, as a use need, not as an engineering need. Therefore use
(IUTF) must have its say as much as engineering (IETF) and possibly
Govs if the ICANN/GAC was acknowledged by the IGF.
>Then you need to distribute an additional "root hint" file pointing to your
>new root servers (similar to http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root)
>As you can see, they only claim to be responsible for ./IN.
>Then you can start selling domains from your new root.
The target is not to start selling. It is to document properly the
way the entire IDNS is to work to the benefit of the whole digital
ecosystem (WDE) users. Once this documentation is clear, stable and
accepted there will certainly be profit and non-profit registries and
However, the IUTF has identified the necessity for IDN (International
digital names) to be life-long for URI stability for exemple, TM
protection, personnal identity right, etc. IDNs are not specially
related to the Internet. Therefore the registry job in this context
is different, and most probably legal. The, DNS and ML-DNS services
will call for operators to support zones and most probably new services.
Also, the development of IPv6 (as a young protocol) will most
probably lead to new development. In particular I would support the
notion of "environment conversion", this would mean to consider that
by default the Internet+ is non-profit. However, if a commercial
(declared as such) host is involved, it may change the environment to
for-profit, with new rules applying. This is a notion to certainly
look at within the neutrality context.
>Please allow me to add a professional advice. If you try to convince the
>browser manufacturers to ask for your class instead of IN, you might have a
The IUTF role is purely architectural. It is to document the way the
Internet+ works should work for users to more adequately benefit from
it. The difficulty with current application manufacturers is that
they believe that when the user uses their application, the
application is the center of the world. And they want to be smarter
than the user, guiding him/her with their ideas. Actually, what the
Internet+ means is that the center of the world is the user:
he/she/it decides of the context in which the application operates.
Building that network context is not the job of the appcation but of the IUI.
The browsers are to be transparent as every other application. They
have no responsibility in determining the language, the CLASS, the
script, the encryption, etc. This belongs to the Presentation layer
and is the job of the single preDNS function in the ML-DNS [ML-DNS is
actually a smart front-end of the Internet DNS].
So the issue is the architecture of the ML-DNS as the *single* smart
interface between UTF-8 transparent CLASSless applications and the
ASCII/CLASS context. With possibly its own multiclass root system.
The matter is a matter of power and size. The architecture must be
able to scale, i.e. to support millions of TLDs. This is not going to
be done with the RSS and 96% of erroneous requests. The requests must
be locally addressed, so the root is to be local and only list the
IRN (International Root Names) the user is interested in, hinting the
Root Name Servers by the operator he favors.
More information about the At-Large