Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some observations re: name server names.

When OpSec and LEA look up whois, they are not only interested in learning
about registrants and other contacts, but name server names, too. Making
these user friendly (A-label) as well as easily parsed by existing
automation would be beneficial.

Example. Consider someone who is familiar with the name generating algorithm
or name "set" of a fast flux or botnet. These parties could benefit from
being able to read the domain name of a name server in A-label format rather
than U-label. 

I don't know if we have sufficient experience with IDNs, but would others
agree that it is generally the case that ASCII7 labels are more "readable"
than labels of the form "XN--" even among individuals for whom ASCII7 is not
the native character set?


On 1/31/11 7:41 PM, "Steve Sheng" <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear all, see comments from Francisco Arias, ICANN registry technical liaison,
> on internationalizing data elements.
> 
> Warm regards,
> Steve
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:59:07 -0800
> To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Taking advantage of a waiting period for feedback on my papers I gave a quick
> review to the slides and have comments on the substance of the work as shown
> in slide 6, see below.
> 
> 
>  1.  Name server names may not need to be internationalized, since they are a
> parameter information (as IP addresses). In fact, strictly speaking they are a
> DNS parameter and as such, not subject to internationalization. Remember IDNA
> is i18n of domain names for use in Applications, not in DNS.
>  2.  Sponsoring Registrar may need to be internationalized since this is an
> important parameter in the interaction with registrants; they often need to
> refer to the registrar and need a familiar way to do so. In order to allow for
> easy interoperation, it may be wise to consider displaying the registrar ID
> (as kept by IANA) along with an internationalized name for the registrar.
>  3.  For the email, is incorrect to refer to an experimental RFC (5335) for
> standardization. Maybe, instead the WG may want to say that once there is an
> standard for EAI, it should be used.
>  4.  Registration status may be worth considering them for i18n in some
> standard way (maybe an IANA registry comprised of a table of the status,
> language tag, and the standard translation for the status. I think this is
> important, in order to avoid user confusion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> __
> Francisco
> 
> From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:00:35 -0800
> To: Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
> 
> Dear IRD-WG,
> 
>   Attached please find the draft outreach slides. In this presentation, we
> focus on the different models and ways to internationalize domain registration
> data. We also provided rational for discussing the different models.
> 
>   As agreed, please provide feedback to the slide deck on the mailing list. We
> also appreciate if you could suggest times and target audience for the
> outreach.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> 
> --
> Steve Sheng
> Senior Technical Analyst
> 
> ICANN
> Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers
> P:  +1 (310) 578 8607
> C:  +1 (310) 463 8430
> www.icann.org
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message