Please, it is a simple question: Did you ever tell your potential customers that all they need is to deploy your DNS servers to support IDN?
You dont need to give me a whole marketing brochure to answer this question. It is only a yes and no. Neither is it as complicated as you said. Everyone knows IDN is complex, and need requires different level of perspective. But my questions isnt so...it is a simple yes and no answer. So please try again. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > You will not misinterpret me if you include my words in entirety and not try > to take anything out of context. > IDN challenges is not a simple issue James, and definitely it does not boil > down to any yes or no question. Please do not create a fake sense of > simplicity for the community. There is a multitude of issues and you know > as well as I do and many in this list that it is critical for the success of > IDNs for more people to understand those challenges. I personally is quite > passionate to see that IDN is successfully deployed and used. > > By the way, there is a discussion at ICANN on IDN Registry implementation, I > am not sure if this is also the right forum to discuss implementation. Does > the people in this group think this is the right place also to discuss these > issues? (it will include character equivalence preparation issues, and > since this group have rightly dismissed the discussion for the sake of the > "protocol", I am not sure if we should raise this dead horse from the ground > in this list)... what do people think?... > > Edmon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IDN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] IDN eamples for testing > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
