Re: FW: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
- To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>, Ird <ssac-gnso-irdwg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: FW: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft outreach slides
- From: James M Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:25:06 -0500
I have added responses to Francisco's comments inline below.
-- 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.
------ 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
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
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
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.