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

[James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have added responses to Francisco's comments inline below.

Jim



-- On January 31, 2011 4:41:03 PM -0800 Steve Sheng 
<steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding FW: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft 
outreach slides --
> 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.
>
>
>   • 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.
While this is a factual statement I do not believe any changes are 
necessary on the slide.

>   • 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.
We already considered this as a WG and decided that displaying the ID 
was sufficient.  If folks want to change this decision I would like to 
see a compelling statement as to why this is important or necessary.

>   • 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.
True but this presentation is a status report.  The slide does say that 
data "could be" internationalized as listed and the column title does 
say "Possible Ways to Internationalize".  However, I agree it is 
essential during any presentation to call out this point about the 
status of the document.  I would suggest that we add to the slide the 
parenthetical "(experimental)" next to RFC 5335 as a reminder to the 
presenter to make sure to mention this detail.

>   • 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.
We already considered this as a WG and decided that the minimum is to 
display the exact EPP code.  Individual clients would be free to 
display this information in an appropriate way for their users, 
including translating any text or expanding on the text in the local 
language.  I do not believe any change to the slide is necessary at 
this time.


> 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,