Re: [jig] Single character labels question framing

[Terry L Davis <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri

No more than any others really.  My point was that we will need "trusted tools"
developed in order to simply configure security services reliably since the 
shown
DNS names stored do not show humanly readable names and we will have to trust
"absolutely" the language translation tools for this configuration.  

This is exactly the same point that Liz's Whois Studies' Registrant ID Study -
presentation point #4, page 8, raises.

Take care
Terry

On Tue Mar 30 21:27 , Avri Doria  sent:

>
>Hi Terry,
>
>Are you saying that you believe there are security risks specific to single
character u-labels?
>
>thanks
>
>a.
>
>On 30 Mar 2010, at 22:32, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
>
>> Avri
>> 
>> I was just back from a weekend with our daughter and grand-daughter in
>> Anaheim and I over-slept not joining till about 4:40AM instead of 4AM.  So I
>> missed most the discussions.
>> 
>> Q1- I think I agree with you here.
>> 
>> Q2- Again I think I agree.
>> 
>> Q3- This seems to require some serious discussions, I think.
>> 
>> All that said, my initial primary concern is simply "how do we get the tools
>> to validate the puny-code stored in DNS"?  We have a stored value that is
>> not humanly intelligible in either latin or the orginal script.  I spend a
>> good part of any day worrying "cyber security" in one form or another, so
>> having "certified" tools that provide that translation from stored puny-code
>> to humanly readable script to me is a key need.  We will need it for most of
>> our security tools; anti-virus, firewalls, etc.
>> 
>> I think "white lists" and such will be part of our discussions as we go
>> forward.
>> 
>> Take care
>> Terry
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx [owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri
>> Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:17 AM
>> To: jig
>> Subject: [jig] Single character labels question framing
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I hope it is ok, for an observer to the group to ask framing questions this
>> early in the process.  If the questions are premature (or stupid), please
>> ignore it.
>> 
>> 
>> While I understand that there are financial and policy issues to be
>> discussed in terms of IDN single character (like which are ccTLDs and which
>> are gTLDs and is there some sort of premium on single character idn labels)
>> , I think we need to be careful in our conversion to distinguish which sorts
>> of labels we are talking about at any moment. 
>> 
>> 
>> A single character a-label is fundamentally different from a single
>> character u-label (though occasionally they look alike).
>> I also think that the IDN WG indicates that there should not be a blanket
>> prohibition of single character u-labels, though there are considerations to
>> be considered.
>> 
>> So in some sense I think this discussion may boil down to the following
>> questions:
>> 
>> Question 1: do single character a-labels remain prohibited? 
>> 
>> Is that even an issue for this group?  I think probably not
>> 
>> Question 2: which, if any, single character u-labels should be prohibited
>> and why?
>> 
>> E.g. extended ASCII u-labels or Cyrillic u-labels that resemble LDH-labels
>> are problematic from the point of view of confusion and should probably be
>> prohibited.  But otherwise what reason could there be for limiting single
>> character idn u-labels?
>> 
>> Question 3: for those u-labels not prohibited what policy conditions
>> pertain?
>> 
>> This might be the bulk of the discussion.
>> 
>> Another differentiation people could make, and seem to make in discussions,
>> is which u-labels are 'words'.  Somehow, it seems that stating that if a
>> single u-label represents a real-world word it is somehow more acceptable
>> then just a single character u-label that does not represent a real-world
>> word. I am not sure I understand why this would be the case, though the
>> financial considerations may be different there is no reason that any TLD
>> needs to represent a word - as the set of existing TLDs shows there are very
>> few words among them.
>> 
>> Finally, reading the IDN WG report with these issues in mind is somewhat
>> confusing to me in that they do not seem to have made such distinctions.  I
>> would be curious to know whether this sort of analysis was considered.
>> 
>> Again if this note is out of place or badly timed, please ignore and excuse.
>> 
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>