Please dont obscure it by marketing talk. Is that a yes or no? I dont want to misinterpret your email.
-James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > Hi James, > > I think I have made it quite clear. > Neteka provides tools, products and services for all facets of TLD registry > systems. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Did Neteka advertise a server-side resolution DNS? > > Of course DNS resolution includes a server-side element. > If you are asking about IDN, we resolve Punycode. > If you are asking about Punycode conversion, yes our servers do that for > administration and DNS Zone preparations. > > If this is not clear enough for you, I am happy to discuss with you > off-list. > > Edmon > > PS. I have recently been working on a number of documents on IDN > Operations, that discusses mainly issues around character equivalence > preparation and management. More specifically taking the discussional > IDN-ADMIN document to create a more generic technical framework that is > capable of allowing different registries to develop their policies freely, > yet driving towards a standard EPP implementation that could take care of > the different needs of registries. Since this is not the right forum for > this particular discussion, I have not included the documents. But I will > be more than happy to share it with anyone who might be interested and > comments will be very valuable to help improve the documents. > > > > > > > > > > It is not my business to tell you if you should or should not. I just want > > to clarify if you have advertise such a product or not. > > > > ps: It is simple question. I would appreciate a simple yes & no answer. I > am > > not interested in any of your other product as your long email below > > described. > > > > -James Seng > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > Allow me to clarify again, in terms of IDN, Neteka focuses on helping > > > registries to understand the registration issues, including character > > > equivalence preparations, the implications to provisioning protocols > that > > > they are using, finally the zone preparation and publishing policies > > > including equivalency preparation issues. > > > > > > All of which are IDNA driven. However, in many cases, databases and > > > provisioning will likely not be using Punycode, because it likely makes > > more > > > sense to store UTF8 or Local Encoding in local databases for all intents > > and > > > purposes. This includes administration of IDNs as well. So, the > servers > > > does take care of the conversion between UTF8/16/LocalEncoding to > Punycode > > > at the zonefile for the DNS. So I am not sure which part you are > alluding > > > to. > > > > > > Anyway, I wish not to continue to advertise our services in this forum > > > because it is not right. However I must clarify that we are very > > supportive > > > of the standard and we are urging TLDs and other relevant parties to > make > > > appropriate preparations for the challenges of IDNs beyond simply the > > > "client", because there are a lot of administrative and operational > issues > > > as well as transition and migration issues that warrant attention. > > > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:46 AM > > > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not "misguided" whatever that means. I am repeating what the > > > people > > > > asked me. > > > > > > > > Neither did I ask them to develop a client, or not to. > > > > > > > > Lastly, in your private mail to me, you mention that you have not > > > advertise > > > > any server-side resolution solution. Could you confirm this in public? > > > > > > > > Once you do, I will forward your response to the registries who have > > told > > > me > > > > "they said they can provide a DNS server that can resolve IDN" to put > > the > > > > end to their misconceptions. > > > > > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 9:03 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > > > If you are discussing about Neteka, I think you must be misguided in > > > your > > > > > discussions. > > > > > > > > > > Neteka supports the IDNA standards and we try to accomodate to the > > needs > > > > of > > > > > registries. In fact we are scheduled to start publishing Punycode > to > > > TLD > > > > > zones that we work with in the very near term. While I can > understand > > > > your > > > > > obsession about clients and plugins, asking each registry to create > a > > > > > "client" is not realistic! Most will look to Microsoft or Netscape > or > > > > other > > > > > browsers/DNS applications to be upgraded over time to IDNA. > > Registries > > > > are > > > > > not DNS resolver or browser vendors. > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, registries really should be exerting some energy in > > preparing > > > > for > > > > > their "servers" for IDN registrations (and NOT the resolution side > as > > > you > > > > > have probably gotten mixed up with). For example handling > > registrations > > > > and > > > > > management of multilingual domain names within registration > databases, > > > > > considering character equivalence issues and provisioning, defining > > zone > > > > > publishing policies for IDNs, etc. all of these are critical to the > > > > success > > > > > of the deployment of IDN. And this is where Neteka mainly focuses > on > > > > > working with registries and preparing their "servers" to accept IDN > > > > > registrations from their end-users. > > > > > > > > > > I hope this clarifies Neteka's works for you and others. :-) > > > > > > > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:06 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The .nu operator supports IDNA, among other things (you also > > > > > > > can sent UTF-8 and various local encodings to their DNS > servers). > > > > > > > > > > > > This sound bad. This is breaking the basic functionity of DNS. > > > > > > > > > > > > <whinning>This reminded me: Various registries have contacted me > > > > regarding > > > > > > how to deploy IDN, should they wish to. At least two of them have > > > > mention > > > > > > that some company in Toronto have told them they can deploy IDN > > using > > > > > "just > > > > > > DNS servers only", customized made I supposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, IETF (or I for that matter) cannot tell anyone what > they > > > must > > > > > do, > > > > > > how to market their product, or how to deploy it. > > > > > > > > > > > > But when someone asked me "Are you sure I need to get some client > > > deploy > > > > > for > > > > > > IDN? They told me I could just deploy their DNS servers to support > > > > IDN.", > > > > > I > > > > > > have to explain IETF standardization, the pros & cons from > technical > > & > > > > > > business perspective, and why they *really* dont want to do so > IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to do it twice now and it is not fun (not that I get paid > for > > > > doing > > > > > > so either). Of course I am chessed off by this Toronto company! > > > Couldnt > > > > > they > > > > > > just do their own marketing and educating their potential customer > > > > > > properly?</whinning> > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. On a related issue: I was wondering whether this is proper > > > > > > > operation of IDNA with HTTP, i.e. whether the ToASCII version > > > > > > > of the host should be put into the Host: header. The obvious > > > > > > > alternative would be to put a MIME-encoded version of the host > > > > > > > name into the Host: field, but RFC 2616 is silent on whether > > > > > > > this is allowed or not (they say that HTTP is "MIME-like") > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC 2616 is silent. But IDNA did specify that for any other > > protocols, > > > > > > unless it is updated to handle IDN, we will default the encoding > to > > be > > > > > > Punycode. So yes, Punycode should be used in Host:. > > > > > > > > > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
